Continuous, real time monitor for airborne depleted uranium particles and corresponding method of use

ABSTRACT

A continuous alpha monitor includes an air intake mechanism, which in turn includes an air mover and an air flowrate monitor, an air intake prefilter that limits particulates in the air intake mechanism to an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less, and a particle size detector mounted downstream of the air intake prefilter, the air particle size detector providing an airborne dust concentration and a first distribution of aerodynamic diameters of particulates in air passing the prefilter, the particulates including depleted uranium particulates. The monitor further includes a sample filter web that collects the particulates; a solid state detector that detects alpha radiation emitted by the collected particulates; a processor that executes machine instructions embodied on a non-transient computer-readable storage medium to compute a dust loading on the sample filter web; and the processor computes an indication of alpha concentration detected by the detector mechanism.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of patent application Ser. No.15/649,626, filed Jul. 13, 2017, entitled “A CONTINUOUS, REAL TIMEMONITOR FOR AIRBORNE DEPLETED URANIUM PARTICLES IN THE RESPIRATORY RANGEAND CORRESPONDING METHOD OF USE,” now allowed, which claims priority toprovisional patent application 62/361,603 filed Jul. 13, 2016, entitled“A CONTINUOUS, REAL TIME MONITOR FOR AIRBORNE DEPLETED URANIUM PARTICLESIN THE RESPIRATORY RANGE AND CORRESPONDING METHOD OF USE.” Thedisclosures of patent application Ser. No. 15/649,626 and provisionalapplication 62/361,603 are incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND

Certain radioactive materials emit particulate matter, namely alpha andbeta particles that may be detected, identified, and quantified based onthe measurement of the amount and energy of the alpha and beta particlesemitted by the material containing the radioactive material. The emittedparticulate matter may pose a hazard to humans through, for example,respiratory inhalation and/or ingestion. Various sampling systems areused to monitor for the presence of these particulate matter.

One specific alpha-emitting radioactive material is depleted uranium(DU). Depleted uranium has both military and civilian applications.Depleted uranium is uranium with a lower content of U-234 and thefissile isotope U-235 than is found in naturally-occurring uranium.Specifically, naturally-occurring uranium contains about 0.72 percent ofthe fissile isotope U-235, while the DU used by the U.S. Department ofDefense contains 0.3% U-235 or less, as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Summary of the Table of Isotopic Abundances of DU TypicalCommercial Feed Depleted Enrichment Uranium Natural (mass (mass (massSpecific Isotope Fraction) fraction) Fraction) Activity (Ci/g) U-23899.20 97.01 99.80 3.3E−7 U-235 0.72 2.96 0.20 2.1E−6 U-234 0.0055 6.2E−30.0007 6.2E−3

Natural uranium has a specific activity of 0.68 pCi/μg, while DU has aspecific activity that is about 60% of this value (see first page of theOverview section of Rostker 2000) (citations to references are providein footnotes and/or at the end of this disclosure). Also, as describedin Section 3 of Rostker, DU could contain trace levels of neptunium,plutonium and americium if the original source of the DU is recycleduranium from reprocessing spent reactor fuel. However, theseradionuclides are in such trace quantities as compared to U-238 they donot require explicit consideration in assessing the doses and risksassociated with inhaled or ingested DU.

Depleted uranium is useful primarily because of its high density, on theorder of 19.1 g/cm³, as compared to the density of lead, 11.34 g/cm³.Civilian DU applications include counterweights in aircraft, radiationshielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiographyequipment, and containers for transporting radioactive materials.Military DU applications include armor plating and armor-piercingprojectiles.

Most DU is a by-product of the production of enriched uranium for use asfuel in nuclear reactors and in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.Enrichment processes generate uranium with a higher-than-naturalconcentration of lower-mass-number uranium isotopes (in particularU-235, which is the uranium isotope supporting the thermal fission chainreaction) with the bulk of the feed ending up as DU, in some cases withactivity fractions of U-235 and U-234 less than a third of those innatural uranium. Since U-238 has a much longer half-life than thelighter uranium isotopes, DU emits less alpha radiation than naturaluranium (i.e., about 40% less). Depleted uranium also arises fromnuclear reprocessing; DU from this source has isotopic ratios differentfrom enrichment-byproduct DU, from which it can be distinguished by thepresence of U-236.

A large body of literature exists directed to DU issues; references fromthis body of literature cited herein are listed in detail at the end ofthis specification. The monograph, EPA 2006, provides an overview of thepotential radiological and toxicological hazards associated with DU inthe environment. Appendix 3 of the monograph provides a listing of theSuperfund sites that are concerned, at least in part, with DU.Publications by the Wise Uranium Project, specifically “CurrentIssues—Depleted Uranium Weapons Tests and Incidents” (May 3, 2016) lists21 sites where DU munitions have been or are being used in the U.S. Thereport also provides a summary of status reports of the issuesassociated with DU at individual sites and links to full text retrievalof the full reports (too numerous to describe here). In addition, a vastbody of literature exists describing various physical and chemical formsof natural, depleted, and enriched uranium, and their associatedradiological and toxicological hazards (see Cheng et al., 2009, ATSDR2013, Parkhurst, et al., 2004, and Rostker, 2000). The literaturedescribes the use of uranium and DU in a variety of commercial products,weapons systems, munitions, and as a byproduct associated with thedevelopment and production of the atomic bomb. Because of its widespreadproduction and use, DU is ubiquitous throughout the world, and there isconcern that it might represent both a radiological and toxic chemicalhazard to individuals who might inhale or ingest DU under a number ofconditions and settings, including:

-   -   1. Exposures to cleanup workers and members of the public during        remediation of contaminated sites and facilities,    -   2. Exposures to members of the public exposed to DU in soil        where legacy DU is present in soil,    -   3. Exposure of military and contractor personnel at facilities        where munitions are tested, and    -   4. Exposure to military personnel during battle and also        first-responders; i.e., those military personnel first on the        scene (who were not in the vehicle) who help with vehicle and        equipment evacuation, including battle damage assessment        teams).¹ ¹ See Committee on Toxicologic and Radiologic Effects        from Exposure to Depleted Uranium During and After Combat,        Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environments Studies and        technology, Division on Earth and Life Sciences. National        Research Council, The National Academy Press, Washington D.C.,        www.nap.edu.

Many sites contaminated with natural uranium and DU are undergoingcleanup, where the soil and associated structures were contaminated withboth natural uranium and DU. During cleanup, the natural uranium and DUmay be resuspended and thus pose primarily an inhalation hazard toradiation workers and members of the general public. The literatureprovides some insight into the extent and concentration of DU in soil atselected sites. Hindin, et al, 2005 cited references that reveal that“In the United States there are over 50 sites that have been/are engagedin developing, producing, and testing DU munitions”. Crean, et al., 2013explains, “when a penetrator strikes an armored target, 10-35% (maximumabout 70%) of the mass is converted into aerosol with median aerodynamicdiameter of d<15 micron.” This material disperses in the atmosphere andeventually deposits on nearby soil.

The following are examples of literature where the concentration of DUin soil at test sites have been reported:

-   -   Crean et al., 2013 describes the DU concentration in soil        collected to a depth of 15 cm at Eskmeals in Cunbria, NW        England, a Ministry of Defense (MOD) firing range that was used        in the development and testing of DU weapons from the 1960s        to 1995. The observed concentration of DU in surficial soil        observed at different locations ranged from 37 to 320+/−40        mgU/kg (or about 10 to 100 to pCi/g).    -   Choy et al., 2005 reports concentrations of DU in surficial soil        at U.S. Army sites of 3.99E3 Bq/Kg (1077 pCi/g), and that 83        percent of the DU is in fines (<0.075 mm or <75 microns) in        which the DU concentration was 9.61E4 Bq/kg (2595 pCi/g) (note        that natural background concentrations were reported as ranging        from 1.7 to 2.2 mg/kg (i.e., 1.1 to 1.5 pCi/g) This        concentration of naturally occurring uranium in soil is        commonplace throughout the world. Table 25 of UNSCEAR 1993        summarizes the concentrations of naturally occurring Th-232 and        U-238 in heavy mineral sands in Australia, reporting average        concentrations in soil and rock for both Th-232 and U-238 of 40        Bq/kg or 1.08 pCi/g).

The residual concentrations of DU in soil at battlefields have also beencited as follows:

-   -   Besic et al., 2017 reports soil concentration of DU in the        Balkans at Hadzici and Han Pijsak in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The        highest report activity of DU in soil at these battle ground        sites range from 1024 Bq/kg (26 pCi/g) to 255,871 Bq/kg (6,909        pCi/g).    -   Mohammed 2008 presents a review of DU contamination in soil and        its depletion and dispersion in the southern part of Iraq        (Nassireya and Amara). In 2003, the DU concentrations in surface        soil at 3 sites ranged from about 16 ppm (about 6.4 pCi/g) to 6        ppm (about 1.2 pCi/g). By 2007 the higher concentrations        declined by about 25%, believed to be primarily by wind.    -   Sarap, et al., 2014 reports the concentration of U-238 soil        samples collected to a depth of 10-15 cm in southern Serbia at        locations where DU penetrators were used and following cleanup        of left over DU fragments by NATO. The observed U-238        concentrations in soil samples reported in Table 1 of the report        ranged from 21 to 95 Bq/Kg (0.57 to 1.3 pCi/g of soil), which is        consistent with values reported in the literature, also in Table        1 of the paper. These values are quite low and likely do not        represent a radiological or toxicological hazard.

The assessment of the potential radiological and toxicological healthrisks at such sites, whether the sites are occupied or undergoingremediation, requires measuring the concentration of both naturaluranium and DU in soil, air, and water. The health risks are primarilydue to inhalation and ingestion of the different chemical and physicalforms of uranium and DU. However, following an accident or duringbattle, relatively large fragments of DU can become imbedded in aperson, and serve as a source of chronic DU dissolution into body fluidsand the blood stream and deposition into organs of the body, such as thekidney and liver. Section 3 Part 5 of Rostker 2000 and also the latestupdate of Current Issues-Depleted Uranium Weapons Tests and Incidents(last updated May 3, 2017) present excellent overviews of issues andhealth effects associated exposure of military personnel to DU.

Parkhurst, et al., 2004 provides a comprehensive (627 page) report onaerosols of DU produced during testing of DU munitions used on Abramstanks. A key finding of the report is that the airborne concentrationinside armored vehicles following DU penetrator penetration ranged from16 g/m³ (16,000 mg/m³) at 10 seconds after penetration to 0.029 g/m³ (29mg/m³) one hour after penetration. An example of the time dependentairborne concentrations in the vehicle following penetration is providedin FIG. 5.5 in Parkhurst, et. al., 2004 is in FIG. 18. The particle sizedistribution of the aerosols as a function of time following penetrationranged from a fraction of 1 AMAD (activity median aerodynamic diameter)at time 0-30 sec to about 100-micron AMAD after several hours followingpenetration.

The implications of FIG. 18 are that the concentrations of DU, both interms of radioactivity and micrograms per cubic meter are both high andrapidly changing. This figure serves as a good example of the conditionsthat the CAM 10 might encounter and how the software controlling the airsampling and counting will continually and automatically self-adjust inorder to ensure that reliable alpha counts, representative of theairborne concentration in real time, are obtained. The key to ensuringthe accuracy and reliability of the continuous measurements of airborneDU under circumstances such as those described in FIG. 18 is to ensurethat the amount of particulates (primarily DU) deposited on the filterdoes not exceed a level that could result in the self-attenuation of thealpha emissions from the DU deposited on the filter. Specifically, inother sections of this application, it is demonstrated that, as thatthickness of the particulate material deposited on the filter approaches1E-3 cm, the potential exists for alpha self-attenuation. Assuming theairborne concentration of DU is at the high end of the distribution inFIG. 18 (i.e., 1E6 micrograms per m³) and the air flow rate is 10 L/min,the amount of DU deposited on the filter in one minute would be 10,000micrograms (1E6 micrograms/m³×10 L/min×1E-3 m³/L). Since the area of thefilter is 450 mm², and assuming the density of the loosely deposited DUoxide on the filter, along with other airborne particulate material thatmay be present, is about 2 g/cm³, the thickness of the particulates onthe filter would be 1×10-3 cm; about the thickness that couldsignificantly attenuate the alpha emissions from the DU on the filter(1E4 micrograms/450 mm²×100 mm²/cm²×0.5 cm³/g×1E-6 g/microgram=0.0011cm). Since the software controlling the air flow rate and duration ofthe airflow passing through the filter is continually being monitored,along with the airborne particulate concentration, the software willcontinually estimate the amount and thickness of the particulates on thefilter. The software will continually adjust the flow rate and airsampling duration to ensure that the amount of particulates on thefilter never reaches a point where the alpha emission from the DU on thefilter will be substantively self-attenuated. Such a thickness will beempirically determined, but will initially be established at 1E-4 cm.When this thickness is reached, the filter will be moved from the samplecollection location to the sample counting location, and a new filterwill be moved to the sample collection location. These operationalcontrols are referred to as a genetic algorithm.

During typical remediation efforts, both natural uranium and DU aremonitored using methods that involve collecting samples and bringing thecollected samples to a laboratory for analysis. A wide variety oftechniques for the measurement of natural uranium and DU in solid andliquid samples have been developed and have been validated by manystandards setting bodies. In addition, many laboratories are accreditedfor the performance of such analyses (DOE 2004 pg. 6-18).

In addition to DU that is resuspended at legacy sites during occupancyor remediation, there is also a potential issue associated with outdoortesting of munitions and armor and the generation of airborne plumes ofDU at the time of such testing. This topic was investigated in depth inthe Capstone Depleted Uranium Aerosol Characterization and RiskAssessment Study (Holmes et al. 2009). The Capstone Study was initiatedfollowing the 1991 Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm). Although theinvestigations addressed DU aerosols inside armored vehicles, the dataprovide some insight into the anticipated characteristics of theaerosols of DU outdoors in the vicinity of these munitions tests. Thedata include airborne concentrations of DU particles, particle sizedistribution (an approximation of activity medium aerodynamicdiameter—AMAD, which is the value of aerodynamic diameter for which 50percent of the airborne activity in a given aerosol is associated withparticles smaller than the AMAD, and 50 percent of the activity isassociated with particles larger than the AMAD) and particle chemistryas a function of time inside the test vehicles. A review of the papersreveals that the airborne concentration of uranium inside the testvehicles within a few minutes after impact was between 1E4 to 1E5 μg/m³and remained at that level for at least two hours (Holmes, et al.,2009). The particle size distribution was found to be one micron AMAD atthe end of two hours after the test (Cheng et al., 2009), and theaerosols quickly converted from the VI to the IV valence state; i.e.,relatively soluble to highly insoluble (Krupka et al., 2009).

Because of concern regarding the exposure of workers during munitionstesting and the possibility of fires associated with oxidation ofuranium during testing (uranium metal is highly pyrophoric), such testsare now usually performed indoors and in other enclosures that minimizethe potential for DU oxide aerosols to become airborne outdoors.However, it is often necessary for personnel to enter such enclosuresshortly after testing in order to evaluate the performance of themunitions. Workers must wait until the airborne concentrations of DUaerosols decline before entry, and it is desirable to monitor DU priorto, during, and following entry into these enclosures. Such workers alsooften wear respiratory protection (which impedes worker efficiency to adegree). In addition, breathing zone samples and bioassay measurementsare often made after the fact to ensure that worker exposures aremaintained below radiation protection standards and as low as isreasonable achievable.

Depleted uranium munitions are also tested in a manner where they arefired but not detonated for the purpose of testing range and trajectory.In dry environments, such as in western regions of the U.S., DUpenetrators oxidize on the firing range and can become aerosolized;again, posing a potential radiological and toxicological inhalationhazard.

SUMMARY

A continuous, real time monitor for airborne depleted uranium (DU) inthe respiratory range includes mechanisms that enable continuousreal-time determination or estimation of the airborne concentration ofrespirable DU (e.g., pCi/m³ of U-238), real time dust loading on asample filter (e.g., mg/cm²), real time airborne concentration ofrespirable airborne particulates (e.g., mg/m³) and size distribution ofairborne particles, including particles of DU or aerosols with DUattached, in air being sampled; as a result, the monitor enablesreal-time determination of not only the airborne concentration ofrespirable particles of DU (e.g., pCi/m³) but can also be set to alarmat a set point which immediately provides notification when the airborneconcentration of particulates (e.g., mg/m³) and U-238 concentration(e.g., pCi/m³) approaches or exceeds a designated concentration asrequired to protect radiation workers and members of the general publicfrom the potential harmful effects of airborne DU. The alarm set pointscan be prescribed by the user or set automatically based on theairborne, real-time measurement of the concentration of DU particles andthe particle size distribution of the DU, both of which can vary basedon changing on-site conditions.

A continuous, real time monitor for airborne depleted uranium (DU) inthe respiratory range includes an air mover that pulls an air sampleinto the monitor, a continuous airborne particulate mass concentrationdevice that enables a dust loading determination, a particle sizedetector device that provides a size distribution of particulatescontained in the air sample, a movable filter mechanism through whichthe air sample is pulled and upon which particulates in the air sampleare deposited, a solid state detector that measures alpha activityemitted from DU attached to particulates, and a processor that controlsmovement of the movable filter mechanism to place the movable filtermechanism in a first position in which the air sample passes therebydepositing the particulates and a second position at which the emittedalpha activity is detected and measured by the solid state detector,wherein the processor executes machine instructions to maintain themovable filter mechanism in the first position for a first time period,maintain the moveable filter mechanism in the second position for asecond time period such that short-lived radionuclides decay, andmaintain the moveable filter mechanism in the second position with thesolid state detector activated to count the alpha activity from decay ofthe DU.

A continuous alpha monitor includes an air intake mechanism, which inturn includes an air mover and an air flowrate monitor, an air intakeprefilter that limits particulates in the air intake mechanism to anaerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less, and a particle size detectormounted downstream of the air intake prefilter, the air particle sizedetector providing a distribution of aerodynamic diameters ofparticulates in air passing the prefilter, the particulates includingdepleted uranium particulates. The monitor further includes a samplefilter mechanism that collects the particulates; a detector mechanismthat detects alpha radiation emitted by the collected particulates; adust loading mechanism that computes a dust thickness on the samplefilter mechanism; and an output mechanism that provides an indication ofalpha concentration detected by the detector mechanism.

A continuous, real time monitor for airborne depleted uranium (DU)particles in a respiratory range, includes an air mover that pulls anair sample into the monitor at a desired airflow rate to depositparticles in the air sample on a filter media; a prefilter sized to passonly respirable range particles in the air sample, wherein therespirable range comprises particles having a maximum aerodynamicdiameter of 10 microns or less; a first particle size detector thatprovides a first size distribution of the particles contained in the airsample; a movable filter mechanism through which the air sample ispulled, the mechanism supporting a plurality of the filter media uponwhich the particles in the air sample are deposited; a solid statedetector that measures alpha activity emitted from DU particles in theair sample and deposited on the filter media; and a processor thatexecutes a program of machine instructions, the program contained on anon-transient computer-readable storage medium, to: control movement ofthe movable filter mechanism to place the movable filter mechanism in afirst position in which the air sample passes thereby depositing theparticles and a second position at which the emitted alpha activity isdetected and measured by the solid state detector, and compute, usingthe first size distribution, a dust loading on the filter media.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The detailed description refers to the following Figures, in which likenumerals refer to like items, and in which:

FIGS. 1-3 illustrate an example continuous, real time monitor forairborne depleted uranium in the respiratory range, and componentsthereof;

FIGS. 4A-B illustrate an example program executable by components of themonitor of FIG. 1;

FIG. 5 illustrates an example system deployment of one or more of themonitor of FIG. 1;

FIGS. 6A and 6B are flowcharts illustrating example operations of themonitor of FIG. 1;

FIG. 7 illustrates a conceptual energy spectrum verses counts forradionuclides included in samples collected by the monitor of FIG. 1;

FIGS. 8-12 illustrate components of a bread board model used to conductexample experiments related to DU sampling and counting operations thatmay be performed using the monitor of FIG. 1; and

FIGS. 13-19 illustrate example experiment results and informationrelated to the example experiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Except for the very specialized investigations performed as part of theCapstone Study, a review of the vast body of reports and analyticalmethods reveals that both natural uranium and DU in air, water, and soilusually are analyzed in a batch mode; i.e., samples are collected andthen analyzed in a laboratory, and the results are reported at a latertime, sometimes days later. Currently, no device or methodology existsfor specifically monitoring airborne, respirable concentrations of DU atsites undergoing remediation or at munitions and armor testing sitesusing a real time, continuous monitor. The ability to monitor DU in sucha manner is desirable so that action can be taken quickly when theairborne concentrations exceed acceptable levels for both workers whoare involved in the indoor and outdoor munitions and armor testing andthose workers involved in remediation of sites, as well as nearbymembers of the general public. Such a monitor can also serve a usefulpurpose during and following a military engagement where DU penetratorsare employed. To address limitations associated with the use of periodicgab samples and subsequent analysis of these samples, disclosed hereinis a device and a corresponding method of use to monitor the airborneconcentrations of respirable DU particles in a continuous and real-timemanner, with the objective of helping to ensure that no radiationworkers, soldiers, military contractors, or members of the generalpublic experience exposures to DU that exceed acceptable levels and aremaintained as low as reasonably achievable. The device is, in addition,autonomous and operates in a generally unattended mode in the sense thatparticulates in the air sample are collected and the activity ismeasured and reported without the need for direct human operation of thedevice (such as removing sample filters).

Despite the very long history associated with the handling of bothnatural uranium and DU in its various forms, no real time, continuousair monitor has been developed for DU in the respiratory range. Thereare several reasons for this. First, although real time airbornemonitors for alpha particulates are commercially available, they aredesigned for use in facilities and situations where very high levels ofradioactive material are being stored, manufactured, or handled and mustbe contained. These situations and facilities are relatively dust-free(compared to outdoor DU environments), which, as is discussed herein, isan important design consideration for DU monitoring. In these facilitiesand situations, should containment fail, it is essential that workers beimmediately informed so that protective and corrective actions can beimplemented. Thus, currently air monitors operate with specificconstraints that are not suitable at many DU facilities but may beacceptable in facilities that could experience such high levels ofradioactive material. Depleted uranium is a type of radioactive materialthat generally does not pose a radiological acute risk (exposure torelatively high concentrations for short periods of time) duringremediation. Instead, DU is of concern primarily as an outdoorcontaminant and represents a potentially chronic, relatively low levelof exposure of workers and the public. However, DU can represent anacute radiological and toxicological risk during munitions testing whenworkers need to enter the indoor testing enclosures shortly followingtesting and under battlefield and post action recovery operations.

In some scenarios, air particulate samples that are periodicallyanalyzed in a laboratory (possibly in conjunction with periodic urinesample analyses for workers) may be adequate to ensure the health andsafety of remediation workers and members of the general publicassociated with DU in the environment. However, laboratory analysis ofsite and urine samples may not provide the level of protection requiredor desired during cleanup of sites contaminated with DU, or duringmunitions testing involving DU. For example, members of the generalpublic do not normally submit to urine samples and site samples may notbe completed in real time. Thus, collecting periodic grab samples ofairborne DU particulates during a remediation or munitions testingproject and then analyzing the samples in a laboratory has beenconsidered adequate for the protection of radiation workers and membersof the general public. In contrast to these delayed sampling processescurrently in use at DU sites, the use of continuous real-time monitoringof respirable particles of DU as disclosed herein may allow responsibleparties to almost immediately be informed when unusually high levels ofairborne DU occur, as opposed to waiting for the results of the periodicanalysis of site and urine samples to determine that off-normalsituations have occurred. In addition, at locations where munitions aretested indoors, continuous real-time monitoring will be helpful inidentifying when workers can enter the testing enclosures.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, are the technical challengesassociated with monitoring airborne respirable concentrations of uraniumand DU in a continuous, real time manner in the environments in which DUmay be encountered, such as at sites undergoing DU remediation and DUmunitions and armor testing facilities. The challenges arise because thenormal procedure to collect uranium aerosols is to continuously draw anair sample and deposit the dust and other aerosols contained within theair sample onto a filter. Because the filter collects all airborneparticulates, including airborne DU, the result is the accumulation of alayer of dust in which the DU is deposited. This sampling processcreates a problem because the way in which DU is detected and measuredis by counting alpha particles emitted during the decay of uraniumcollected on the filter. However, alpha particles are easily attenuatedby the smallest amount of dust present on the filter, making itdifficult to accurately determine the quantity of DU present on thefilter. In addition, there are many naturally occurring airborneradionuclides that also emit alpha particles, not unlike the alphaparticles emitted by DU. Such radionuclides include the progeny of radongas, which are ubiquitous in both the indoor and outdoor environments.The specific radon progeny that collect on filters and emit alphaparticles include primarily Po-218 (3.05-minute half-life) and Po-214(164 microseconds (μs) half-life and daughter of the beta emitter,Bi-214, which has a 20-minute half-life and is also deposited on thefilter). As a result, even if the dust layer deposited on a filter isthin relative to the range of alpha particles, the presence of Po-218and Po-214 can result in false positives in a real-time monitoringsetting. These false positives can be managed with grab samples becausecounting a grab sample can be delayed until these short-lived progenydecay away. The challenges associated with the real-time, continuousmonitoring of any airborne alpha emitter are described in detail inSeiler et al., 1988.

As a result of these challenges, the standard method for measuring theconcentration of uranium in air, including the concentration of DU, isto draw a sample of air through a filter for some period of time, andthen take the sample to a laboratory, weigh the sample, dissolve thesample, chemically separate the uranium from the rest of the solids thatare on the filter, deposit the uranium atoms onto a planchette (leavingbehind the other dissolved and undissolved solids that were on thefilter), and then determine the number of uranium atoms on theplanchette by counting the number of alpha particles emitted by theuranium atoms. This process removes any solids that could attenuate thealpha particles emitted by the uranium atoms and also excludes othernon-uranium alpha emitters that might have been deposited on the filterduring air sampling, such as Po-218 and Po-214. Alternatively, if thedust loading on the filter paper is very thin, and the only manmaderadionuclide of interest is U-238 or natural uranium, it is possible toobtain a reliable estimate of the amount of uranium on the filter bywaiting for the short-lived naturally occurring, alpha-emitting radonprogeny to decay and then obtain a gross alpha count of the alphas inthe uranium region of interest. Thus, this standard DU sampling methodis far from continuous, real-time sampling.

As noted herein, assessment of the radiological risks associated withthe use of DU or clean-up of sites potentially containing DU havegenerally been based on a grab sample (including general air samples andbreathing zone or lapel samples), followed by laboratory analysis; thisprocess is intended to remove the effects of certain radionuclides toachieve an accurate assessment for radionuclides of interest, and thedelay in producing results is considered acceptable. To provide resultsin a timelier manner, some form of detector that counts activity fromthe sample in a continuous manner and produces a real-time readout maybe desired. As noted herein, continuous air monitors exist that sampleair for particulate matter and provide the results of radioactivityassociated with the particular matter. However, these continuous airmonitors have limited applicability, and certainly will not provide thedesired results in an outdoor environment, such as exists at DUcontaminated sites undergoing remediation, and/or DU projectile andarmor test sites, and recovery activities following a militaryengagement where DU projectiles were employed. As an example, U.S.Patent Application 2003/0015655 to Ryden (hereafter Ryden) discloses anair monitor for alpha and beta emitters. A Canberra iCAM™ Alpha/Beta AirMonitor (referred to hereafter as iCAM™) (description available atwww.canberra.com) appears to be a commercial embodiment of the Ryden airmonitor. The Ryden air monitor and the iCAM™ are designed for a specificenvironment in which naturally occurring alpha emitters might interferewith reading alpha activity from radionuclides of interest, such asPu-238 and Pu-239. As such, both the Ryden and iCAM™ monitors employ anauto adaptive radon and thoron compensation scheme for both alpha andbeta based on alpha spectrometry. However, neither monitor includes thefeatures and elements needed to function satisfactorily at, for example,a DU testing site undergoing remediation, munitions or armor testing, orlong-term monitoring of a DU testing site. Specific differences betweenthe herein disclosed continuous, real time monitor for airborne depleteduranium particles in the respiratory range and the iCAM™ are discussedin detail later.

To overcome limitations inherent in current alpha detection devices,systems, and methods, including the iCAM™, disclosed herein is acontinuous, real-time monitor, and a corresponding method of use, formeasuring respirable alpha particles emitted by depleted uranium. Themonitor is autonomous and can operate unattended for an extended time.The monitor operates under atmospheric conditions within its countingchamber (with the possible exception of controlling temperature andhumidity in the counting chamber), and thus does not require generationof a vacuum when counting alpha particles. The monitor includesmechanisms that enable real-time determination or estimation of dustloading on a sample filter and size distribution of airborne particles,including DU particles and particles with DU attached, in air beingsampled; as a result, the monitor enables real-time determination of DUexposure for both radiation workers and members of the general public,with the DU exposure limit established based on the real time airborneparticle size distribution, which can vary based on changing on-siteconditions related to airborne particle size distribution and dustloading on the sample filter. The monitor is especially useful formonitoring during remediation of DU sites, such as outdoor firing rangesinvolving DU munitions and/or DU armor and immediately followingmunitions testing performed indoors. The monitor also is useful formonitoring during actual DU firing exercises.

FIG. 1 is a simplified diagram showing example components of anembodiment of the continuous, real time monitor (referred to hereafteras continuous air monitor (CAM) 10). The description of the CAM 10 thatfollows, including the descriptions referring to FIGS. 1-4B, uses thefollowing terms and their associated meanings or definitions:

Aerosols are colloids or suspensions of fine solid airborne particles inthe respirable range, having diameters ranging from less than 1 micronto about 10 microns. Larger sized particles can be present in the air,but are not respirable; i.e., they will be deposited in the upperrespiratory tract and then removed by clearance up the respiratory tractmucociliary ladder and swallowed or eliminated in expectorate or blowingout of the nose. DU taken into the body by these mechanisms do notrepresent a radiological risk because they do not penetrate to the deeplung, but can represent a chemical toxicological risk to other organs,notably the kidney, if absorbed into the body. Such absorption can beimportant for the more soluble forms of DU (Rostker 2017)

Airborne DU concentration is the radioactivity of the airborne DUparticles expressed in pCi/m³.

Airborne particulate or aerosol mass concentration is the concentrationof airborne material expressed in mg/m³.

Dust consists of airborne particles, typically originating as soil, andwhich may settle onto a filter during air sampling operations. As usedherein, dust refers to particles or particulate matter deposited on asample filter during airborne monitoring.

Dust loading on a filter is the amount of dust on a sample on a filterexpressed in mg/cm².

Mass concentration refers to the mass of materials, such as airborneparticulates generally expressed in terms of mg/m³.

Particulates refers to the fine solid airborne particles also referredto as aerosols.

Referring to FIG. 1, the CAM 10 includes intake/exhaust 20, particlesize distribution/dust loading mechanism 30, movable air samplingmechanism 40, air mover 50, solid state detector 60, processor system70, input/output module 80, and power supply and environment module 90.Finally, the components and mechanisms of the CAM 10 are contained inhousing 11.

The intake 20 is shaped and designed to provide a straight flow ofsample air through intake port 22 into the housing 11, through variouscomponents of the CAM 10, and on to the movable air sampling mechanism40. After passing through the mechanism 40, the sample air exits thehousing through exhaust port 24. The intake 20 also may include anoptional adjustable intake filter 23 to filter out large diameterparticulates. The filter 23 may operate in conjunction with adifferential pressure monitor and alarm (not shown) to indicate filterclogging. The filter 23 may be removed (and if necessary, replaced)easily, either as a result of clogging or to change the size ofparticles the filter 23 are intended to pass into the intake 20. In anembodiment, the filter 23 is intended to pass particles with anaerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less.

The particle size distribution and associated real time respirableairborne particulate concentration mechanism 30 provides the means toaccount, in real time, for particle size distribution in the air sampleand airborne particulate concentrations when determining DU activity.Elements of the CAM 10 then may use the determined particle sizedistribution, as discussed herein, to compute, on a real-time basis,activity limits for both radiation workers and members of the generalpublic. The computation of the dust loading on the filter is used byelements of the CAM 10 to determine if sample counts may be undulyaffected because of shielding of alpha particles by dust collected onthe sample filter (referred to hereafter as sample location 46A of web46—see FIG. 2B).

In another embodiment, a second air particle size detector 31 may beinstalled upstream of prefilter 23 and may operate to provide a particlesize distribution in terms of aerodynamic diameter (for particles withaerodynamic diameters greater than 10 microns (for example, up to or inexcess of 50 microns). Such a detector 31 may have utility in situationswhen larger size particles may be of concern. As can be seen, when thesecond air particle size detector 31 is installed, a portion 30B of theair intake may be diverted through the detector 31.

To enable these computations, in one embodiment, the mechanism 30receives the intake air sample and determines particle size distributionfor aerosol particles contained in the air sample. In an aspect, themechanism 30 provides data to express particle size in terms of diameter(microns) and/or median aerodynamic diameter, and/or activity medianaerodynamic diameter (AMAD), also expressed in microns. The mechanism 30provides the particle size distribution to the processor system 70 sothat DU activity may be measured and an allowable set point for exposureto radiation workers and members of the general public may be computed,in real time.

In another embodiment, the mechanism 30 may be used to estimate the dustloading on the sample location 46A that will occur during air sampling.The dust loading may be expressed as mg/cm². In an aspect, two devicesare used to measure airborne concentration of particles (microgram/m³)and median aerodynamic diameter (microns) both upstream and downstreamof a prefilter; a first device is upstream of the prefilter and a seconddevice is downstream of the prefilter. In each device, sample air passesthrough a measurement chamber where the particles are illuminated by alight source and the resulting scattered light is detected under acertain detection angle. The resulting signal of the scattered light isoutput as airborne dust concentration (mg/m³), or dust loading. In anembodiment, a portion of the air sample entering the intake 20,indicated by arrow 30A, is diverted from the intake 20 for measurement.The operation of the mechanism 30 is discussed in more detail below.

As an alternative embodiment, rather than placing the particle sizedistribution/dust loading mechanism 30 in the intake 20, the functionsof the mechanism 30 may be incorporated into a standalone device; thatis, for example, the dust loading measurement may involve a samplechamber that is separate from the intake 20. In an aspect, the dustloading measurement device (and the particle size measurement device)may be separate from the CAM 10. In yet another alternative embodiment,particle size distribution and/or dust loading may be estimated based ondata from the site being remediated and using algorithms disclosedherein.

The movable air sampling mechanism 40 may be structured as a continuousconveyor belt or, as illustrated in FIG. 1, a mechanism having dispenserroller 42 and uptake roller 44 over which replaceable web 46 is set tomove past the intake 20 to collect an air sample and then move to thesolid-state detector 60 to read alpha activity from the collectedsample. The roller 44 may be operated by motor 52 with the roller 42rotating (idling) in response to the rotation of the roller 44. Themotor 52 operates in response to signals from the processor system 70.Use of replaceable web 46 (instead of a continuous web or belt) may bepreferable so that any particles remaining on the web after a priorsampling operation will not affect future sampling operations. That is,in an embodiment, the web 46 does not form a continuous loop around therollers 42 and 44. In addition, rollers 42 and 44, and other elements ofthe mechanism may be contained in a replaceable cartridge assembly (notshown) that allows easy replacement of the web 46 and also serves tocontain radioactive material deposited on the web 46. Finally, a filtermedia lifting device, described with respect to FIG. 3, may be included.

The web 46 may be formed from Teflon®, glass fiber, paper, or othermedia material. Preferably, the web 46 is formed from a material thatwill not repel the aerosol particles, nor allow the aerosol particles tobecome embedded in or absorbed by the web 46. The web 46 may be changedwhen the amount of web material on the roller 42 reaches a nearendpoint. The mechanism 40 may include a detector 41 that determines thenear endpoint of the unrolling web 46 and provides a correspondingsignal to the processor system 70. The detector 41 may perform thisfunction by simply counting rotations of the roller 42 or the roller 44,or the number of samples counted, for example.

In an aspect, the mechanism 40 may include optional advanced, passivestatic eliminator 43, which may consist of a rod or wire placedperpendicular to the movement direction of the web 46. Such staticeliminators are available from Stopstatic.com.

Further aspects of the mechanism 40 are described with respect to FIGS.2A and 4B,

The air mover 50 includes a multi or variable-speed electric motor 52driving an impeller mechanism 54 that pulls air through the intake 20,past the particle size mechanism 30 and through the movable air samplingsystem 40, and exhausts through exhaust port 24. The size of the airmover 50 is chosen to achieve the desired air flow rate to achieve thedesired sampling efficiency and accuracy, and may be 10 liters perminute (L/min), for example. The air flow rate of 10 L/min may beemployed when the CAM 10 operates in a battery mode, and the air flowrate may be changed based on a variety of factors including the sourceof power to the motor 52.

The solid-state detector 60, also referred to as a semiconductorradiation detector, in which a semiconductor material, such as a siliconor germanium crystal, constitutes the detecting material is well knownand is efficient in alpha spectroscopy. The detector is coupled to anamplifier circuit 62 to ensure an adequate signal is available forsupply to the processor system 70. In an embodiment, the detector 60 maybe encased in movable detector housing 61, which forms a light-tightbarrier when the CAM 10 is actually counting alphas.

The detector 60 may be placed within the CAM 10 such that surface 64 ofthe detector 60 is spaced A millimeters (mm) above the surface of theweb 46. The spacing A is preferably about 3 mm or less, and may be assmall as about 1 mm. In an embodiment, the detector 60 is attached toadjustment mechanism 66 that may be used to adjust the height of thedetector surface 64 above the web 46.

The processor system 70, in an embodiment, includes a programmableprocessor and various data and program storage elements. The processorsystem 70 is described in more detail with reference to FIG. 2A.

The input/output module 80 receives signals from the processor system 70and provides various outputs, including an alarm indicating a protectiveset point has been reached, and end of filter signal indicating the web46 should be replaced, a readout of particle size, dust loading on theweb 46 (e.g., mg/cm²-milligrams per square centimeter), and alphaactivity, and other data. The module 80 may provide outputs locally onthe CAM 10 and may send outputs to a remote station, either by wired orwireless communications. The module 80 also may allow an operator tochange settings such as air flow rate and other parameters to affectoperation of the CAM 10

The power supply and environment module 90 performs two functions.First, the module 90 provides electrical power to the variousmechanisms, modules, and components of the CAM 10. The module 90 mayinclude a plug-in power supply 92, a rechargeable battery 94 and analternate power supply 96. The module 90 may include an AC/DC converter,a DC/AC converter, power regulators, and other components (not shown inFIG. 1) normally found in a regulated power supply. The alternate powersupply 96 may be or may include a solar power system, for example. Themodule 90 allows the CAM 10 to be used in remote locations, away fromany grid-based power source. The battery 94 is sized to permitprotracted operation of the CAM 10.

An optional second function of the module 90 is to maintain satisfactoryenvironmental conditions within the housing 11. For example, the module90 may include a temperature control unit (which may include one or moreventilation fans, or a refrigerant-based cooling system, and a heatingsystem, for example—not shown) to regulate temperature within thehousing 11 and a humidity control unit (not shown) to regulate humidity.

FIG. 2A illustrates selected components of the CAM 10 of FIG. 1. Theselected components are shown without specific reference to theirlocation within the CAM 10. In FIG. 2A, processor system 70 is shown toinclude input/output (I/O) 71, processor 72, data store 74, andcommunications bus 78. The data store 74 includes non-transientcomputer-readable storage medium 75 on which is stored monitoringprogram 200, described in detail with respect to FIGS. 4A and 4B, anddata base 77, which stores data used by and/or generated by theprocessor 72. The communications bus 78 connects the processor 72 todata store 74 and to other components of the CAM 10, including the I/Omodule 80 (as shown in FIG. 2A) such that the processor 72 may receivesignals from and provide signals to those components, as appropriate.

In the embodiment of FIG. 2A, processor 72 is shown installed within theCAM 10 and can be seen to direct the operations of the CAM 10 byexecution of program 200 and by possible reception of command signalsfrom another remote computer or processor. In another embodiment, mostor all of the functions of the CAM 10 may be directed from a remoteprocessor (e.g., at station 130—see FIG. 5—or in a cloud computingenvironment) with the processor 72 receiving commands from the remoteprocessor and sending data and reports to the remote processor.

The I/O module 80 includes alarm module 82, display module 84, controlmodule 86, and communication module 88. The alarm module 82 provides forphysical manifestations of alarms, such as visual alarms (lights),audible alarms, and alarm readouts at the CAM 10. The display module 84includes physical display, at the CAM 10, of various readouts, in textand image format on a human-readable display or graphical userinterface. The control module 86 provides human user interface and localcontrol of the CAM 10 through various switches, buttons, and soft keys,for example. The communication module 88 provides wired and wirelesscommunications from the CAM 10 to one or more remote locations. Usingthe communication module 88, the CAM 10 may send data, alarms, status,and other information to connected machines using any current network,including wide area networks such as the Internet, and local areanetworks. The communication module 88 allows for cloud storage ofinformation from the CAM 10.

FIG. 2B illustrates a segment of the web 46. In FIG. 2B, the web 46 isshown with sample location 46A. Sample location 46A corresponds to aposition in the intake 20, and is where samples impinge, and passthrough, web 46, depositing particulate matter on the web surface.Counting location 46B corresponds to a position below the detector 60.Thus, web 46 is seen to advance sample location 46A where a sample iscollected to counting location 46B, where (1) the collected sample maysit without counting to allow decay of short-lived radionuclides, and(2), after the wait, the detector 60 is activated to count alphaactivity from DU (and other alpha emitters) in the sample. Movement ofthe web 46 is under control of the processor 72 executing program 200(described with respect to FIGS. 4A and 4B) to allow a sufficientcollection time at sample location 46A, sufficient decay time atcounting location 46B, and sufficient counting time at counting location46B.

In an embodiment, the mechanism 40, and in particular the web 46, may besupplied as a replaceable cartridge and, may be encased, in part, inhousing 48, a portion of which is shown in FIG. 2B. In addition tomaking web replacement easy, the housing 48 provides some containment ofradioactive materials remaining on the web 46 after sampling andcounting. To allow for sample collection and subsequent counting, thehousing 48 is open over the lengths LA and LB while allowing thedetector housing 61 to maintain a light-tight seal with the housing 48.

FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of a movable web, held within housing48 (not shown in FIG. 3), that may be used with the CAM 10. In FIG. 3,web 46′ is shown in a top-down view suspended around rollers 42 and 44(shown partially by the dashed lines). The web 46′ may be made of anysuitable material but is porous to allow passage of air. The web 46′ hasmounted thereon, a number of circular elements 46N. FIG. 3 shows threesuch elements 46N, one in a sample location, one in counting station,and one in filter removal station. The circular elements 46N are adheredto the underlying web 46′ using a flexible, non-permanent adhesive suchthat the elements 46N may be removed from the web 46′ by a human user orautomatically by a suitable lifting device, such as device 47, whichlifts a leading edge of the element 46N when the element 46N arrives atthe filter removal station without displacing or disturbing any materialcollected on the element 46N during airborne sampling operations of theCAM 10. In an aspect, the lifting device may be built in to the housing48 and the housing 48 may be constructed with a slot or opening thatallows the lifted element 46N to be removed from the housing 48 andcollected for subsequent laboratory analysis. In an alternativeconfiguration, the housing 48 may be constructed with an opening thatallows manual removal of elements 46N (by a human user).

The elements 46N, as well as the web 46′, may be formed from Teflon®,glass fiber, paper, or other material. Preferably, the elements 46N areformed from a material that will not attract or repel the aerosolparticles, nor allow the aerosol particles to become embedded in orabsorbed by the elements 46N. The adhesive (not shown) that holds theelements 46N to the web 46′ may be any suitable material that maintainsthe elements 46N securely adhered to the web 46′ during storage andoperation, including sampling and counting, yet allows air flow and easyremoval of the elements 46N from the web 46′ without disturbing thecollected material deposited on the element 46N.

FIG. 5 illustrates an environment in which one or more CAMs may be used.In FIG. 5, environment 100 includes a DU site 110 undergoingremediation. The DU site has a perimeter fence 112 to limit access.Members of the general public may reside or work outside the perimeter112. Network 120 includes control station 130 and a number of CAMs 10placed inside and outside the perimeter 112 and operating under controlof the station 130. The distribution of CAMs 10 is purely forillustrative purposes. The CAMs 10 may communicate with the station 130by wired or wireless means. One or more of the CAMs 10 also may be underlocal control. Some or all of the CAMs 10 may be in operationsimultaneously. Some or all of the CAMs 10 may operate during actualremediation operations or may operate continuously until remediation iscomplete.

FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate, in block diagram form, an example program ofinstruction executable by components of the CAM 10. In FIGS. 4A and 4B,program 200 includes power module 205, CAM configuration module 210,self-check/calibration/heart beat/diagnostics module 215, flow ratemeasurement, control, and alarm module 220, alpha activity monitor,detection, readout, storage, and alarm module 225, particle sizedistribution (AMAD) module 230, dust loading monitor and alarm module235, web control and alarm module 240, airflow recording module 245,airborne DU activity concentration computation and reporting, storage,and alarm module 250, communication module 255, and data storage module260.

The power module 205 controls power into the CAM 10 and distribution ofpower to various components of the CAM 10.

The CAM configuration module 210 receives commands from the processor 72and provides signals to components of the CAM 10 to operate in aspecific manner. For example, the module 210 may direct the variablespeed motor 52 to operate at a speed that achieves a desired flow rateof sample air. The module 210 also may provide signals that indicate theconfiguration of the CAM 10, such as the sample air flow rate or motorspeed.

The self-check/calibration/heart beat/diagnostics module 215 providesstart-up checks and optionally provides a “heart beat” signal to thecontrol station 130. The module 215 also enable calibration checks anddiagnostics routines.

The air sampling flow rate measurement, control, and alarm module 220measures air flow rate in the intake 20 and adjusts the speed of themotor 52 as needed to provide a desired/required airflow. The module 220also provides a low flow and a high flow alarm, locally at the CAM 10,and remotely at the control station 130.

The alpha activity monitor, detection, readout, storage, and alarmmodule 225 controls operation of the detector 60 to detect and countalpha emissions and provides a real-time readout of counts, derivedairborne DU activity concentration, and related data. The module 225also provides for local and remote storage of the data. Finally, themodule 225 provides alarm set points and activates alarms (audible,visual) when set points are reached.

The particle size distribution (AMAD) module 230 may use a default valuefor the AMAD of DU. Thus, in an embodiment, the CAM 10 may operate onthe premise that the airborne particles of DU have an AMAD of 5 micronsor other selected AMAD. A 5-micron or a 1-micron AMAD is recommended bythe International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) (dependingon circumstances) because these diameters are representative ofrespirable airborne particles in general and also are associated with arelatively high radiological hazard potential as compared to particleswith larger sizes. In another embodiment, the module 230 may incorporatean algorithm, such as the algorithm of Equation 1, that may be executedto adjust the alarm level if the AMAD of the actual particles deviatessignificantly from 1 or 5 microns AMAD. The module 230 may receivevarious measurements from the module 230 to estimate the AMAD. In anaspect, the module 230 includes instructions and routines to perform areal-time determination or estimation of particle size distribution ofparticles in air being sampled; the real-time determination provides anappropriate DU exposure limit for both radiation workers and members ofthe general public with the DU exposure limit varying based on changingon-site conditions related to airborne particle size distribution.

The dust loading and alarm module 235 directly measures the airborneconcentration of aerosols entering the air sampling intake 20 (in termsof mg/m³), in combination with the measured airflow rate (e.g., L/min)with appropriate unit conversions estimates the amount of dustaccumulating at the sample location 46A (in terms of mg/cm² and/or interms of thickness in mm), provides a readout for each sample collected,and provides an alarm if the airborne DU concentration or the amount ofdust deposited in the filter exceeds the selected set points.

The web control and alarm module 240 controls movement of the web 46between the sample position and the counting position (see FIG. 3). Themodule 240 also provides an end-of-web alarm when the web 46 requiresreplacement.

The airflow recording module 245 receives measurements of airflow fromthe mechanism 30 and provides a readout. The module 245 also providesalarm values should airflow reach a high or low alarm set point (L/min).

The airborne DU aerosol calculation, reporting, storage, and alarmmodule 250 provides a readout of DU concentration in pCi/m³ with anassociated time stamp. The module 250 also computes averageconcentration for radiation worker locations, site boundaries, andoffsite locations on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual basis. Themodule 250 may provide for storage of the data locally in the database77 and may send the data, in the form of reports or in other formats, toa remote-control station. Finally, the module 250 may provide visual andaudible alarms when computed DU concentrations reach a specified limit,such as 7 pCi/m³ for radiation workers.

The communication module 255 controls signal and data reception andtransmission components of the CAM 10 to send and receive data,commands, and alarms, as appropriate, between the CAM 10 and otherdevices and the control station 130.

The data storage module 260 provides for data storage onboard the CAM10, optionally in a cloud, and formats data for transmission to otherdevices and the control station 130.

Having described components of the CAM 10, and an example environment inwhich the CAM 10 may operate, following is a conceptual designdescription of the CAM 10. The conceptual design takes into account theshort-lived progeny of radon as well as the likelihood that the DUitself will contain relatively small amounts of alpha-emitting U-234 andU-235 and perhaps other alpha emitters associated with DU from recycleduranium. Some depleted uranium is produced from sources of uranium thatwere previously irradiated and recycled and may contain very smallamounts of manmade alpha emitters and other radionuclides that areextremely small in concentration and will not interfere in the intendedperformance of this device.

Miller et al., 2009 reports that DU munitions are comprised of 12.3Bq/mg of U-238, 1.39 Bq/mg of U-234, and 0.16 Bq/mg of U-234.Accordingly, about 10 percent of the alpha emissions from DU are fromisotopes of uranium other than U-238. In an embodiment of the CAM 10,the alphas from U-234 (4.8 MeV) and U-235 (4.4 MeV) are included becausethese alphas also contribute to the radiation exposures of interest. Inanother embodiment, the CAM 10 counts the alpha emissions from U-238(4.2 MeV) and multiplies this count by 1.1 to account for thecontribution of alphas from U-234 to the dose. This embodiment takesadvantage of the fact that both the inhalation and ingestion effectivedose conversion factors for the three uranium isotopes (U-234, 235, and238) are virtually identical. Thus, either embodiment of the CAM 10 mayinclude the contribution of U-234 and U-235 to the radiation exposureassociated with DU. Other aspects of these two embodiments; i.e.,counting the alphas directly by extending the energy region of interestup to 4.8 MeV or multiplying the count in the U-238 region of interesti.e., 4.2 MeV and below, by 1.1, are discussed in more detail below.

Naturally occurring Th-232 and U-235 series radionuclides also arepresent in soil and airborne particulates, but in concentrations thatare negligible compared to the concentration of U-238 associated withDU. Specifically, the concentration of U-238 in DU in soil at many sitescontaminated with DU is on the order of hundreds to thousands of pCi/g(see Choy et al., 2006 and the other references cited above), while theconcentrations of naturally occurring uranium and thorium in soil areabout one to two pCi/g each (see Table 4.3 of NCRP 1987). In an aspectof the two embodiments mentioned above, the CAM 10 is designedspecifically to quantify the concentration of U-238 (and perhaps alsothe small amounts of U-234 and U-235 associated with the U-238) inairborne DU at a site while discounting the presence of other alphaemitting radionuclides except for Po-218 and Po-214. Should a DU siteinclude other man-made alpha emitting radionuclides (i.e., transuranicelements), those alpha emitters likely will not be present inconcentrations of concern; however, the CAM 10 may not be suitable atsites where other man-made alpha emitters are a major concern (i.e., atairborne concentration comparable to that of U-238).

For typical DU sites undergoing remediation, the output of the CAM 10will include an accurate determination or estimate of the activityconcentration (pCi/m³) of DU at levels of interest for the protection ofradiation workers (i.e., workers operating under an NRC, NRC AgreementState, or DOE License), military personnel, and members of the generalpublic without the risk of false positives or false negatives, as longas the CAM 10 can exclude counts associated with Po-218 and Po-214(i.e., in theory, Po-218 and Po-214 may cause false positives), andavoid attenuation of the alpha emissions from U-238 (which, if itoccurs, may result in false negatives). These two aspects are addressedin detail in the description of the conceptual design of the CAM 10provided below.

How the CAM 10 works and why the CAM 10 differs from and is animprovement on other monitors and methods currently used to monitoralpha emitters, as applied to continuously monitoring DU, is shown witha hypothetical example. The example begins with the assumption of a sitewhere soil or the floors, walls, and equipment within a building arecontaminated with DU, and the site and its facilities are undergoingremediation or workers need to enter an enclosure where munitions aretested. During remediation, the contaminated soil, structures, and/orequipment will generate aerosols that contain DU. It would be desirableto know the activity concentration of DU in real time and when theairborne activity concentrations of respirable particles exceed a levelthat could result in radiation exposures to radiation workers and alsomembers of the public that exceed the applicable radiation protectionstandards for each category of individual. The design of the CAM 10 isbased on the assumption that the airborne DU activity concentration ofinterest is that which could result in a lifetime committed effectivedose of 500 mrem/yr or greater (500 mrem/yr is 10 percent of theradiation protection standard for occupational radiation workers) and 50mrem/yr or greater (50 mrem/yr is half the radiation protection limitfor members of the general public; i.e., 100 mrem/yr effective dosecommitment). There are alternative design objectives that can beestablished for the CAM 10, which would require different alarm setpoints that are discussed below.

A review of EPA 1999² reveals that the inhalation committed effectivedose conversion factor for adults for insoluble particles of U-238,which is the form of uranium that is of primary interest duringremediation, is 8.04E-06 Sv/Bq for adult workers exposed to particles ofDU that are in the respirable range of 5-micron activity medianaerodynamic diameter (AMAD). For members of the general public, thelimiting effective dose conversion factor is 2.85E-5 Sv/Bq. This is thehighest inhalation effective dose conversion factor for insolubleuranium and applies to infants. For other age groups, the doseconversion factor is slightly less restrictive. For particles with asmaller than 5-micron AMAD, the dose conversion factors can be higherthan those for 5-micron AMAD. ² The inhalation dose conversion factorsrecommended by the EPA in Federal Guidance Report No 13 are convenientlyand more completely tabulated in a CD prepared by the InternationalCommission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Version 2.01 for Windows95/98/Me/NT/2000 titled “ICRP Database of Dose Coefficients: Workers andMember of the Public,” ISBN 0 08 043 8768 Distributed by ElsevierScience Ltd., Pergamon.

Given these dose conversion factors, the concentration (C) of U-238 inair that could result in a committed effective dose of 500 mrem/yr toexposed workers and 50 mrem/yr to exposed members of the public may becalculated as follows:

Radiation Workers

Cw=Dw(DCFw)×Bw×a×b

where:

Cw=the concentration of uranium in air that would result in 500 mrem/yrto radiation workers under continuous exposure or a 2000-hour work year(Bq/m³)

Dw=the annual lifetime committed effective dose corresponding to 10percent of the limit for occupational radiation workers (mrem/yr)

DCFw=the inhalation dose conversion factor for workers exposed toinsoluble forms of U-238 aerosols with an AMAD of 5 microns (Sv/Bq)

Bw=Breathing rate for adult males during light work activity (m³/hr)

a=unit conversion factor (mrem/Sv)

b=unit conversion factor (work hours per year)

Inserting the values for each parameter, the calculation is as follows:

Cw (Bq/m³)=500 mrem/yr÷(8.04E-6 Sv/Bq×1.0E5 mrem/Sv×1.2 m³/hr×2000hr/yr);

Cw=0.25 Bq/m³=7 pCi/m³

Members of the General Public

Cp=Dp (DCFp)×Bp×a×b

where:

Cp=the concentration of uranium in air that would result in 50 mrem/yrfor full time exposures to the limiting members of the general public(Bq/m³)

Dp=the annual lifetime committed effective dose corresponding to 50percent of the limit for radiation exposures to members of the generalpublic (mrem/yr)

DCFw=the inhalation dose conversion factor for the limiting members ofthe general public exposed to insoluble forms of U-238 aerosols with anAMAD of 5 microns (Sv/Bq)

Bw=breathing rate for the limiting members of the general public(m³/day)

a=unit conversion factor (mrem/Sv)

b=unit conversion factor (days per year)

Inserting the values for each parameter, the calculation is as follows:

Cp (Bq/m³)=50 mrem/yr÷(2.85E-5 Sv/Bq×1.0E5 mrem/Sv×5.4 m³/day×365 daysper year)

Cp=8.9E-3 Bq/m³=0.24 pCi/m³

These calculations indicate that a real time, continuous air samplingmonitor that could detect 7 pCi/m³ of DU (in this calculation it isassumed that the DU is entirely U-238; in reality, a small fraction(about 10%) of the measured alpha activity is from U-234 plus U-235) inthe respirable range would be useful for ensuring the protection of anyradiation worker who may be exposed to airborne DU. The CAM 10 candetect and record DU concentrations well below 7 pCi/m³. In addition,for members of the public (particularly children who may be exposed 8760hours per year), it would be desirable to detect 0.24 pCi/m³ of DU.These are useful benchmarks, but alternative benchmarks could beemployed. For example, the radiation protection standards for radiationworkers involved in work licensed by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and Agreement States are set forth in Part 20 of Title10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10CFR20). Appendix B of thatregulation establishes an airborne concentration limit for insolubleU-238 uranium particles of 2E-11 pCi/ml for workers and 6E-14 pCi/ml formembers of the general public, referred to as Derived Air Concentrations(DACs). These concentrations correspond to 24 pCi/m³ for radiationworkers and 0.06 pCi/m³ for members of the public. In order to meetthese or other objectives, the design of the CAM 10 would not beaffected, but the operational characteristics of the CAM 10 may need tobe modified, including air sampling flow rate, air sampling time, andduration of counting the air samples in a manner that will allow clearand unambiguous output that would indicate when the airborneconcentration of DU exceeds concentrations of concern. These matters areaddressed in detail below.

Two questions emerge from these calculations. Can such exposures andassociated airborne concentrations of DU actually occur during thecleanup of a DU site, and can a continuous real-time monitor (i.e., theCAM 10) be designed that can detect these, or possibly lower,concentrations of airborne DU?

With respect to the first question, assume that the soil at a DU sitecontains 9.61E4 Bq/kg (2,595 pCi/g) as cited above in the paper by Choy,et. al., 2006. During remediation, it would not be unusual for theairborne dust concentration to reach one mg/m³. The subject of outdoorair dust concentrations (sometimes also referred to as outdoor airbornedust loadings) is reviewed in Kennedy et al., 1992, (referred to asNUREG/CR-5512). In that review, a number of document findings aredescribed, as follows:³ ³ The following are the citations for thereferences cited in this quote: Stern, A. C.1968, 2^(nd) edition,Academic press, N.Y.

-   HEW 1969, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Air Quality    Criteria for Particulate Matter,” HEW, Washington, D.C.-   MaGill, P. L., R. R. Holden, and C. Ackley, eds. 1956. Air Pollution    Handbook. McGraw Hill, New York.-   Sehmel, G. A. 1974. “Particle Resuspension from and Asphalt Road.”    Atmosphere-Surface Exchange of Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants.    Conf. 740921, U.S. Atomic Energy Agency, Washington, D.C.-   Sehmel, G. A. 1975. Atmospheric Dust Size Distribution as a Function    of Wind Speed. In Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report for 1974,    BNWL-1950-3, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Wash.-   Sehmel, G. A. 1977a. Transuranic and Trace Simulant Resuspension.    BNWL-SA-6236, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Wash.-   Sehmel, G. A. 1977b. Radioactive Particle Resuspension Research on    the Hanford Reservation. BNWL-2081. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,    Richland, Wash.-   Sehmel, G. A. 1980. Particle Resuspension: A Review. Environ. Int.    4:107-127. Sehmel, G. A. 1984. Deposition and Resuspension. In    Atmospheric Science and Power Production.-   DOE/TIC-27601, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.-   Sinclair, P. C. 1976. Vertical Transport of Desert Particulates by    Dust Devils and Clear Thermals. Atmosphere-Surface Exchange of    Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants. Conf. 740921, U.S. Department of    Energy, Washington.-   Soldat, J. K. et al, et al. 1973, “Assessment of Environmental    Impact of the Retrievable Surface Storage Facility,” BNWL-B-313,    Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Wash.-   Anspaugh, L. et al. 1974, resuspension and Redistribution of    Plutonium in Soils,” Health Physics 29:571-582

For outdoor air concentrations, a number of references are provided fora wide variety of situations. In Air Pollution, Vol 1 (Stern 1968),measurements from the National Air Sampling Network for urban situationsare summarized for the period 1957-1963. Chemical analyses for suspendedparticles (soot and ash) of 14,494 urban and 3,114 non-urban samples inthe United States yielded a geometric mean of 98 μg/m³, with a maximumof 1706 μg/m³. Information in Air Quality for Particulate Matter (HEW1969) indicated that

-   -   . . . average suspended mass concentrations range from about 10        μg/m³ in remote nonurban areas to about 60 μg/m³ near urban        locations. In urban areas, averages range from 60 μg/m³ to 220        μg/m³, depending on the size of the city and its industrial        activity.

The Air Pollution Handbook (MaGill, Holden, and Ackley 1956) reportedthat suspended particles in the atmosphere of a number of communities inthe United States can range from 100 μg/m³ to 1000 to 2000 μg/m³ . . . .

Upper and lower limits of airborne-soil mass-loadings as a function ofparticle size were estimated for the Hanford Site near Richland, Wash.(Sehmel 1975, 1977a, 1984). The volume distributions were for winderosion, without mechanical disturbance, for a semi-arid climate. Forparticulate sizes less than 10 μm, the upper limit for mass loading wasestimated to be about 700 μg/m³. For particle diameters less than 10 μg,the upper limit for mass loading was 232,000 μg/m³. The effect ofmechanical disturbance is to create somewhat higher localized airconcentrations than for wind erosion alone. For comparison, relativelyclean air has a dust loading [note that in this reference, the term“dust loading” corresponds to the airborne concentration of particulatesmaterial] of about 20 μg/m³ (Sehmel 1977b); a dust loading of 110,000μg/m³ is barely tolerable for breathing (Stewart 1964); and the dustconcentration measured in a dust devil (whirlwind) is approximately 5g/m³ (Sinclair 1976).

Previous estimates have been made to determine a long-term averagedust-loading for purposes of radiation dose assessment. A 1973 studyassessed the potential environmental impacts of the interim storage ofcommercial high-level waste in a retrievable surface storage (Soldat etal. 1973). This high level waste assessment used an average atmosphericdust loading of 100 μg/m³ as being a typical annual averagedust-loading. In 1975, Anspaugh et al. suggested the use of 100 μg/m³for predictive purposes. This value was partly based on measurements for30 nonurban locations with arithmetic averages from 9 to 70 μg/m³(Anspaugh et al. 1975).

Under these conditions (i.e., those of Kennedy et al., 1992), theactivity concentration of DU in the air would be 2.5 pCi/m³. Theimplications are that the airborne concentration may approach theactivity concentration of interest for radiation workers (i.e., 7 pCi/m³for a 5-micron AMAD) under fairly dusty conditions and exceed theconcentrations of concern under highly dusty conditions at a DUremediation site.

With respect to members of the public, the chronic (chronic refers toairborne concentrations of DU aerosols that remain elevated forprotracted periods of time over the course of a year but can fluctuateduring that time period) aerosol dust concentration is unlikely toexceed about 1/10th the level at the remediation site or about 0.1mg/m³. Under these conditions, the airborne concentration of DU would be0.25 pCi/m³, which, coincidentally, is the approximate activityconcentration of interest for the protection of the public (i.e., 0.24pCi/m³).

From the perspective of members of the public, pathways other thaninhalation might also be of concern. These exposure scenarios would bethose that occur during and after remediation activities have ceased,but offsite contamination might persist in the environment for extendedperiods of time. Three exposure scenarios can be used to conceptualizethese offsite exposure pathways. The first is if the contaminationsettles on the soil surface and erodes away rapidly (due primarily towind and/or rain) and is deposited in a nearby body of water. Thisscenario results in virtually no exposures. The second scenario is ifairborne DU is transported offsite and results in a cumulative soilsurface contamination. The inventor estimates a reference offsitecumulative soil surface contamination of 2.2E6 pCi/m² per pCi/m³ ofchronic levels of airborne DU at the location of an offsite resident.The method used to derive this value is described below. Assuming thisactivity does not erode away but comingles with surface soil to ashallow depth of about one cm, the annual dose to individuals residingat such a location would be about 1.58 mrem/yr per pCi/m³ of chronicairborne concentrations of DU. This exposure occurs due to thedeposition and resuspension of deposited uranium. Depleted uraniumdeposited onto soil can result in external exposure and also internalexposure due to the resuspension and inhalation of the depositeduranium.

The third scenario is if the deposited DU co-mingles more deeply intothe soil due to tilling the soil. In this scenario, other pathways ofexposure come into play, such as food ingestion after the uraniumdeposits onto the ground. The computer code RESRAD is useful inexploring the potential exposures associated with these other pathways(Yu et al 1993a and Yu et al 1993b). Zhang et al., 2014 present a reviewof the literature on dust deposition velocities and the results of theirown experiments. Depending on particle size, wind speed, surfaceconditions, and atmospheric conditions, the deposition velocity can varywidely, reportedly ranging from 0.1 to 1.28 m/sec in the publishedliterature. Zhang et al., 2014 shows results consistent with theliterature review. Based on Zhang et al., 2014, the example presentedherein assumes a chronic airborne DU concentration of about one pCi/m³,and that uranium aerosol is depositing at a rate of 0.7 m/sec resultingin the activity concentration of DU accumulating on the ground over thecourse of a year to be 2.2E6 pCi/m². This assumes no natural attenuationin the soil, which finds support in Yu et al., 1993. This referenceincludes a literature review that reveals that the erosion rate varieswith the characteristics of the soil, slope of the land, weather, wind,rainfall, types of vegetation, etc. Based on Yu et al., 1993, theexample uses an erosion rate of one cm/yr. For the purpose of aconservative short-term analysis, the inventor elected to ignore erosionin this scenario because it has very little effect on the results of thecalculation. In agricultural soil, it can be assumed that that tillingof the land would distribute the DU to the root zone of vegetation, orabout 15 cm. On this basis, the activity concentration of DU in soiloffsite can be estimated to be about 7.3 pCi/g at the end of one year ofdeposition, assuming the airborne activity concentration of DU ischronically at one pCi/m³.

RESRAD and its default parameters then are used to derive theanticipated radiation doses to members of the public at offsitelocations due to this level of contamination in soil for a number ofexposure pathways. The results of this analysis reveal a peak dose of0.78 mrem/yr per pCi/m³ of U-238 chronically airborne at the location ofthe offsite receptor for one year.

These calculations indicate that individuals located offsite couldexperience 50 mrem/yr effective dose commitment from inhalation of thepassing plume of DU as it is produced from a variety of mechanisms thatresult in the resuspension of DU present in soil (e.g., duringremediation, vehicular disturbance, and/or wind erosion). In addition,assuming one year of remediation, individuals offsite could alsoexperience about one mrem per year from DU deposited onto soil afterwork has terminated, assuming that the chronic airborne activityconcentration of DU is one pCi/m³. Hence, an alarm set point of 0.24pCi/m³ serves as a design objective of the CAM 10 that ensures thatoperators are notified when the concentration of airborne uranium is ata level that begins to approach exposures to any member of the public inexcess of 100 mrem/yr if the airborne particulate mass concentrationremained at the derived elevated levels for protracted periods of time.

The implications of these calculations are that periodic grab samples(e.g., daily or weekly) followed by laboratory analysis for DU may beadequate to ensure that the levels of airborne DU can be managed wellbelow applicable radiation protection standards. However, members of thepublic may prefer a continuous monitor that would be able to detect thepresence of elevated levels of DU as soon as possible. One of the otheradvantages of the CAM 10 is that changes in airborne dust loading can bereadily correlated with changes in cleanup operations as they occur.This is useful as a way to optimize protection of workers and the publicby understanding what practices and conditions are associated withepisodic increases in the concentrations of airborne DU so thatcorrective actions could be quickly implemented.

Considering the above radiological conditions and a desire to showprotection for both radiation workers and members of the public, the CAM10 is expected to meet the following specifications, which will beconfirmed by testing a CAM 10 prototype:

1. minimize the amount of dust (i.e., the dust loading) that wouldaccumulate on a filter (e.g., the web 46) during sampling such that thedust does not degrade the energy distribution of the alpha particlesemitted by DU on the filter,2. use a sensor that discriminates between the amount of alpha particlesemitted by DU on the web 46 and alpha particles from other radionuclidesthat might be on the web 46, and3. measure the amount of DU on the web 46 at a level of sensitivity thatdoes not require a large amount of DU and/or counting time to determineif the airborne activity concentrations of DU exceed acceptable levelsfor radiation workers and members of the public.

The description that follows explores the degree to which the CAM 10meets these specifications as applied to the protection of radiationworkers and as applied to the protection of members of the public. Inthe case of radiation workers, the CAM 10 should be able to detect 7pCi/m³ and in a second case, the CAM 10 should be able to detect 0.24pCi/m³.

Protecting Radiation Workers

The starting point for evaluating whether it is possible to meet thesespecifications as applied to radiation workers is selecting the air flowrate entering the CAM 10. For the purpose of this analysis, let usassume the following:

1. A continuous air sampling rate of about 10 liters per minute forabout one hour and a concentration of DU in the air in the respirablerange of 7 pCi/m³. This flow rate and sampling time can be adjusted asneeded to achieve the objectives of the CAM 10. Ten liters per minutewas selected because a conventional battery powered air mover can easilyachieve this flow rate for an extended period of time before thebatteries need to be charged or replaced. A one-hour sampling time wasselected in this example because it can be considered close enough toreal time to meet the need for an early indication of changingconditions.2. An average airborne particulate concentration ranging from of 0.1 to1.0 mg/m³ on site and no more than 0.1 mg/m³ at the site boundary andoffsite for extended periods of time. Kennedy, et al., 1992(NUREG/CR-5512) present a review of the outdoor airborne dustconcentration under a broad range of conditions. Under thesehypothetical circumstances, the amount of DU that would deposit on theweb 46 would be about 4 pCi for a sampling time of about one hour.

A typical solid-state detector will likely be able to detect thepresence of 4 pCi of U-238 on the web 46 by accumulating counts for onehour. Four pCi on the web 46 corresponds to about 9 disintegrations perminute and 533 disintegrations per hour (i.e., 4 pCi×0.037 dps perpCi×3600 sec/hr=533 disintegrations) or about 160 counts in one hour ofcounting, assuming an approximate 30% counting efficiency aboveinstrument background, which is likely to be less than one count perhour. For example, the web site for the AMETEK ORTEC AlphaSuite alphaspectrometers, cites a detector efficiency of >25% and a backgroundcount rate of <1 count per hour for alpha emissions above 3 MeV based ontheir BU-020-450-AS detector, which is one inch in diameter and undervacuum conditions. However, this count level of 160 counts in one houris based on the assumption that the dust loading (mg/cm²) on the web 46will not degrade the energy of the alpha particles before they reach thedetector. This issue of dust loading is discussed below. In addition,solid state detectors that currently are used to measure airborne alphaemitters usually operate in a vacuum to avoid degradation of the alphaenergy distribution by the air space between the filter and thedetector. However, as discussed below, Applicant believes, based oncareful reasoning and study, that in the scenario of DU site monitoringdiscussed herein, if the detector 60 is not placed in a vacuum, theenergy distribution of the alpha particles will not be substantivelydegraded, and the detector 60 should be able to provide a clear andunambiguous signal when the airborne activity concentration of DU isabove 7 pCi/m³ and the detector is placed close (about 2 mm or less) tothe web 46. This is a matter that will be confirmed through testing.

One confounding variable is the possibility of a false positive, whichcould occur if there are other alpha emitters present in the sample.There are certainly a large number of alpha emitters that might beairborne at a given site. However, the only alpha emitters that areubiquitous at all sites and that need to be taken into consideration inthe design and operation of the CAM 10 are the short-lived progeny ofRn-222 (radon), which include Po-218 (6.114 MeV alpha) and Po-214 (7.833MeV alpha). Other naturally occurring alpha emitters in soil associatedwith the U-238 and Th-232 radioactive decay series are at levels thatcannot substantively affect the alpha dust loading of interest to thisapplication. For example, the concentration of naturally occurring U-238in soil is approximately one (1) pCi/g (see Table 4.3 (page 61) of NCRP1987), which is orders of magnitude below the concentration of DU insoil at sites where this monitor is intended for use.

In a typical outdoor environment (not including sites with elevatedlevels of radium), the outdoor concentration of radon is on the order of270 pCi/m³ (see Table 24 (page 73) of UNSCEAR 1993), and its progenyinclude particulate alpha emitters, namely Po-218 and Po-214. Thisshort-lived radon progeny rarely are in equilibrium with their parent.For example, paragraph 135, pg. 54 of UNSCEAR 1993 reports equilibriumfractions of 0.4 indoors and 0.7 outdoors. Also, note that theirconcentrations in air are close to three orders of magnitude greaterthan the concentrations of U-238 that are of interest here (e.g., 270pCi/m³×0.6÷0.24 pCi/m³=788). Under these conditions, the alpha emittersassociated with Po-218 and Po-214 present on the web 46 could result ina false positive because their natural presence in the atmosphere is somuch greater than the concentrations of U-238 that are of interest here(i.e., 7 pCi/m³ for workers and 0.24 pCi/m³ for members of the generalpublic). The following explores the mitigating factors and potentialchallenges posed by Po-218 and Po-214.

One mitigating factor is the relatively short half-life of Po-218 (3minutes). Because of its relatively short half-life, Po-218 will notcontinually build up on the web 46 for the entire one-hour time periodof sampling and, once sampling ceases, will decay away quickly, asdemonstrated by the following calculations.

Assume that the outdoor concentration of Po-218 is 0.7×270 pCi/m³ (e.g.,189 pCi/m³), and it is being continuously deposited onto the web 46 at arate of 10 L/min. At equilibrium, the amount of Po-218 on the filterwill be: 189 pCi/m³×10 L/min×1E-3 m³/L÷(0.693/3 min)=8.2 pCi.

The activity of U-238 on the web 46 after one hour of filtration at 10L/min, with the U-238 concentration at 7 pCi/m³ will result in 4 pCi onthe web 46. Hence the concentration on the web 46 of U-238 would becomparable to that of Po-218. If counting is delayed for example, for 15minutes, the concentration of Po-218 at the beginning of the count willdecrease 32-fold to 0.26 pCi due to radioactive decay, and will continueto decay during counting. As such, the example assumes Po-218 will notcontribute significant counts to the DU region of interest and shouldnot interfere with the protection of workers.

The Po-214 is potentially more problematic than Po-218. Although Po-214has a very short half-life, it will be continually replenished by itsparent, Bi-214 (a beta emitter with a 20-minute half-life), which willalso be present and build up on the web 46. It is convenient to think ofthe alpha emissions associated with Po-214 as if they belonged toBi-214. On that basis, the concentration of Bi-214/Po-214 on the web 46can be derived as follows:

189 pCi/m³×10 L/min×1E-3 m³/L (1−exp(−λt))÷(0.693/20 min)=1.89 pCi/min(1−0.13)÷0.963/20 min=42 pCi.

Hence, after one hour of filtration at 10 L/min, the Po-214 activity onthe web 46 will be 42 pCi, while the concentration of U-238 will be 4pCi. The Po-214 will decay, but not substantially, during counting forone hour because of the 20-minute half-life of Bi-214. This raisesconcerns that the Po-214 might contribute counts to the U-238 region ofinterest (the region of interest is the energy band in Mev (about 3.8 to4.2 Mev for U-238) where most if not all the electron pulses produced bythe alpha particles striking the detector 60 fall). However, thisproblem should be manageable because the region of interest for U-238counting can be isolated from the region of interest of the alphas fromPo-214 (alphas of 7.833 Mev). This challenge is greater when the U-238concentration of interest is 0.24 pCi/m³ for protecting members of thepublic.

A mitigating factor, especially with respect to Po-214, is the highresolution of solid state alpha detectors, such as the detector 60.Because of the high resolution of detector 60, very few of the pulsesassociated with the Po-218 and Po-214 are expected to fall into theenergy region of interest associated with the alpha emissions fromU-238. It is noteworthy that all other alpha spectrometers employalgorithms referred to as “spectral stripping” as a means to subtractout counts from alpha emission from one or more radionuclides fromcontributing counts to the region of interest of another radionuclide.These algorithms are complex and can contribute to errors in the derivedquantities of a given radionuclide on a filter sample. The detectordescribed herein does not use such algorithms. Instead, the detector 60counts the number of electronic pulses that fall within the energyregion of interest for U-238. The detector 60 can do this because therewill be no significant counts in this region of interest fromradionuclides other than U-238.

FIG. 7 presents a conceptual characterization of the energy spectrum ofthe primary alpha emissions associated with U-238, Po-218, and Pb-214.The actual relative height and width of each spike will be determinedexperimentally during testing and production of the CAM 10. Note thatwhen a given alpha particle impinges on the solid-state detector 60, thealpha particle generates an electronic pulse that has a maximum sizecorresponding to the energy of the alpha particle. However, there willalso be pulses generated that are slightly smaller than the maximumenergy of the alpha particle, referred to herein as straggling. Theimplications are that some of the pulses produced in the detector 60 bya given energy alpha particle will also fall into energy regions belowthe maximum energy of the alpha particle. Hence, it is possible thatthese lower energy pulses could fall into energy regions associated withradionuclides present on the sample with lower alpha energy emission,resulting in false positive readings for the radionuclides with thelower energy alpha emissions.

To a large extent, this problem can be accounted for by setting theenergy discriminator of the detector 60 such that the detector 60 countspulses only within a given energy window. However, if the energies ofthe alpha emissions from different radionuclides present in the sampleare close together (i.e., within a few tenths of an MeV), it is possiblethat there will be difficulty discriminating the number of atoms of onealpha emitter in the sample from another, lower energy, alpha emitter inthe sample (see Table 2). This is in fact the case for counting theamount of Pu-239 in a sample that also contains Po-218. The reason isthe energy of the alpha particle emitted by Pu-239 (5.1 MeV) is somewhatclose to the energy of the alpha particles emitted by Po-218 (6.114 MeV)(also see FIG. 1 in Seiler, et al. 1988). However, in the case of U-238,the alpha energy is 4.2 MeV, well below the alpha energy of Po-218. Theimplications are that the presence of Po-218 in the sample, even inrelatively large quantities and even in the presence of air (i.e., novacuum), will not deliver a substantial number of counts in the energyregion of interest with respect to U-238.

The degree to which this might occur depends on the height of the Po-218spike and the degree to which its alpha emissions might be attenuatedwhen traveling from the web 46 to the detector 60. The issue of alphaattenuation was researched by and described in Huang, et al., 2002. Inthat reference, the authors found that alpha attenuation is not an issueas long as the thickness of the aerosol deposit (i.e., the dust loading)on the web 46 is less than 0.1 mg/cm². As discussed below, for the CAM10, the dust loading on the web 46 might reach 0.09 mg/cm² based on anair flow rate of 10 L/m, one hour of sampling, and an ambientparticulate mass concentration of one mg/m³. Huang, et al., 2002 alsoprovides a review of other publications on this subject. Of particularinterest, Stevens et al., 1963 show that for membrane and glass fiberfilters the presence of nonradioactive dust caused serious reduction inenergy resolution for dust exceeding—0.4 mg/cm². Table 2 presents theresults of the Huang, et. al., 2002 investigations with Po-218 (6.114MeV alpha).

TABLE 2 Effect of Dust loading on Resolution (Full width at halfmaximum, FWHM) Alpha Energy Dust Loading Type of Aerosol Isotope (MeV)(mg/cm²) FWHM (keV) Glass Beads (3-10 Po-218 6.0 0 296 +/− 36 microns)0.62 357 +/− 33 2.5 337 +/− 47 Iron Oxide (0.3-0.8 0 300 +/− 33 microns)0.58 286 +/− 13 5.6 272 +/− 24 Unattached 0 170 +/− 40 Radon Decayproducts 0.37 105 +/− 16 11 125 +/− 11

On this basis, it does not appear that the dust loading on the web 46will result in a deterioration of the energy resolution for the alphaemissions from particulates on the web 46 to such an extent thatattenuation of the Po-218 and Po-214 alpha peaks will deposit asubstantial number of counts in the energy region of interest associatedwith U-238, even if the quantity of radon progeny on the web 46 issignificantly larger than that of U-238.

The final and possibly the most important issue has to do with thepossibility that so much dust will deposit on the web 46 that any alphaparticles emitted by U-238 in the sample will be substantively degradedand/or never reach the detector and result in false negative readings.In order to evaluate this issue, the inventor assumed a typical high endchronic outdoor airborne particulate mass concentration of one mg/m³ andan air sampling rate of 10 L/min. The total amount of dust deposited onthe web 46 during one hour of sampling would be about 0.6 mg. Assuming a1-inch diameter sample, the thickness of the dust deposit on the web 46would be 0.6 mg÷6.45 cm²=0.09 mg/cm² at an airborne dust concentrationof one mg/m³. Assuming a dust density of 2 g/cm³, the thickness of thelayer of dust on the web 46 after one hour of filtration would be 4.5E-5cm. This thickness of dust is not expected to substantively attenuatethe alpha emissions from U-238. This conclusion is based on the alpharange information provided in Table 3.

TABLE 3 Range of 4.2-MeV Alphas* Density Range Material (g/cm³) g/cm² cmμm Air (dry near sea level) 1.20E−03 3.34E−03 2.78 — Water 1 2.88E−032.88E−03 28.8 Aluminum Oxide 3.72 1.13E−03 2.36E−03 23.6 Silicone 2.334.34E−03 1.85E−03 18.5 DUO2** 1.73 9.68E−03 5.60E−03 56.0 DUO2** 10.979.68E−3 8.82E−04 8.8 *National Institute of Science and Technology,Physics Measurements Laboratory: astar-stopping power and range tablesfor helium nuclei.http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ASTAR.html. **These areestimated values. In one case, the uranium oxide is assumed to settle asa dust and is not compacted on the filter and has a bulk density of1.73. In the second case, the uranium oxide is assumed to be a solidmetal oxide. The former is likely to be a more realistic value.

The implications of Table 3 are that the range of the alpha particlesemitted by U-238 in the dust deposited on the web 46 would likely bemuch greater than the thickness of the dust on the web 46 assuming aone-hour sampling duration at an air flow rate of 10 L per minute. Assuch, self-attenuation within the deposited dust sample is not expectedto undermine the ability of the instrument to perform its intendedfunction.

Table 3 also reveals that it is essential that the solid-state detector60 is located very close to the web 46 (perhaps only a few mm). If thedistance between the web 46 and the detector 60 approaches 3 cm, itwould be necessary for the housing containing the filter and thedetector to be placed in an evacuated chamber. It is for this reasonthat many alpha spectrometry units employ a vacuum chamber. However, theinventor believes that an evacuated chamber is not needed as long asthere is assurance that the distance between the filter and the detectorcan be maintained at a few mm. For this detector, the gap between thedetector 60 and the web 46 may be adjustable.

One additional possible problem with such a design is that, due toelectrostatic forces produced during the movement of the web 46 orelectrostatic charge contained in the web 46 itself, some particles ofdust on the web 46 might deposit and buildup on the surface of thedetector 60. Such a buildup would gradually increase the “background”counts of the detector 60, resulting in false positives. One solution tothis problem is covering the detector 60 (and perhaps the entireinterior of the counting chamber) with an ultrathin superhydrophobiccoating to mitigate electrostatic deposition of particles on thedetector 60. Typical materials include proprietary polymer emulsions,such as Ultra-Ever Dry™, at thicknesses below on micron (1E-6 cm) andproprietary nanometer scale patterned silica or other nanomaterialcoatings. Another possible solution to this problem could beSTOPStatic.com, which consists of metal rods or strands that drainelectrostatic charge. During testing of the CAM 10, particular attentionwill be given to this possible issue.

Radiation Protection of the Public

In order to help ensure protection of the public, it would be desirablefor the CAM 10 to be able to detect airborne DU concentrations of 0.24pCi/m³. If the airborne concentration of DU is 0.24 pCi/m³, 19disintegrations would be experienced by a monitor with a flow rate of 10L/min, a sample collection period of one hour, and a counting time ofone hour. Again, assuming the monitor is 30% efficient, the total countrate would be about 6 counts per hour following the one-hour samplecollection. Since the background count of alpha spectrometers is lessthan one count per hour, it should be possible to determine if theaverage concentration of DU in air on an hourly basis and also determineif the average hourly airborne concentration of DU is above 0.24 pCi/m³.Issues related to false positives and false negatives discussed abovefor monitoring workers apply even more so to monitoring of members ofthe public. However, as discussed above, the inventor believes theseissues are manageable and would be confirmed during testing of the CAM10.

The inventor recognized that, rather than recording the average airborneconcentration on an hourly basis, it would be desirable to report andplot the airborne activity concentration of respirable DU continuously.This can be accomplished by taking advantage of the component of theherein disclosed instrument that continuously records the airborneparticulate concentration (mg/m³). In addition to deriving the averageairborne activity concentration of DU (pCi/m³) for a given one-hourperiod, the CAM 10 also may derive the activity concentration of DU inthe sample on the web 46, expressed in units of pCi/mg. The instrumentwill be able to do this using the continuous air flow monitor(liters/min) and its associated continuous airborne dust concentrationmonitor (mg/m³). Once the average activity concentration of DU in theair over a given hour is determined, an estimate can be made of the airconcentration as a function of time for the previous hour in units ofpCi/m³. After the first two-hour period (one hour to collect the sampleand one hour to count the sample), a reasonable estimate of theconcentration of respirable DU in air in units of pCi/mg of aerosol canbe made. Going forward in time after that first two-hour period, thedata characterizing the airborne aerosol concentration (mg/m³) can beused, such that the aerosol concentration is continuously being recordedand knowledge is acquired of the concentration of DU associated with theaerosol (pCi/mg) to continuously report and record the airborneconcentration of DU on the aerosol (pCi/m³); i.e., a continuousreal-time monitor. At the end of the next hour, this estimate will bevalidated by using the measured concentration and amount of DU on of thenext hourly sample. This approach to continuously monitoring andrecording the airborne concentration of DU is based on the premise thatthe concentration of DU in the aerosols (pCi/mg) will remain fairlyunchanged during the course of any given hour. If a significant changedoes occur during the course of a given one-hour period, it will bedetected and corrected at the next hourly count. In this way, not onlyis there a measurement of the average hourly respirable airborneconcentration of DU and the average hourly concentration of DU in thesolids deposited on the filter (which serve as our hourly anchor), areasonable estimate is made of the time varying concentration ofrespirable DU on a continuous basis by continuously recording theairborne aerosol concentration in mg/m³.

Conceptual Design of the CAM 10

A conceptual design of a continuous, real time monitor (i.e., the CAM10) is now described for detecting the presence of DU in air atconcentrations in excess of the levels that are of concern with respectto protecting radiation workers and members of the public. Theconceptual design refers to elements and components of the CAM 10illustrated in FIGS. 1-4B.

Considering aerosols that are in the respirable range, (i.e., less thanabout 10 microns aerodynamic diameter), there are a number of approachesthat may be used to ensure that the aerodynamic diameter of theparticles is known and accounted for in recording the airborneconcentration of respirable particles of DU and establishing appropriatealarm set points. One approach would be to first pass the air flowthrough a gross particulate filter (e.g., filter 21) to remove airbornedust particles above the respirable range (above 10 microns). Changes inthe air flow rate would indicate when the gross particulate dust loadingis so great that it might be impeding the sampling of respirableparticles of DU. The air flow would then pass by a particle sizedetector (e.g., the detector in mechanism 30) that would measure theparticle size distribution using methods that would not affect theconcentration of the respirable particulates in the air steam and wouldalso measure the airborne aerosol concentration in the air (mg/m³).Alternatively, the air flow can be drawn through a horizontal elutriatorsystem, such as the MRE Type 113A gravimetric as described in Chapter 9of Aerosol Science for Industrial Hygienists, by James H. Vincent,Pergamon, 1995. This type of device results in the collection ofrespirable aerosols on a filter. Other commercially available devicesthat can be used to characterize airborne concentration of dustparticles and the aerodynamic diameter distribution of aerosols aredescribed in the James H. Vincent reference.

The air flow would then pass through a movable (e.g., a type of conveyorbelt) Teflon®, glass fiber, paper, or other type of filter (the web 46)onto which air particulates would be allowed to deposit forapproximately one hour (i.e., at station 46A). The web 46 with thedeposited dust will move to the next stage (i.e., at station 46B), wherethe web 46 will be positioned just beneath solid state alpha detector60. This will be a light tight counting chamber which will preclude theproduction of pulses due to light which would interfere with countingpulses associated with the alpha emissions from U-238. With the web 46placed immediately beneath the solid-state detector 60 at a distanceless than a few mm, counts will be accumulated in an energy window (theregion of interest) that begins at about 3.8 MeV and ends at about 4.2MeV; i.e., the energy of most of the alpha emissions from U-238.Counting may be delayed for about 15 minutes to allow most of the Po-218to decay away and then counts in the region of interest may be collectedfor approximately one hour before the web 46 moves on to measure theU-238 alpha emissions present in the next spot on the web 46.

The counts associated with each web 46 air sample spot (i.e., the airsample collected at station 46A) will be recorded and time stamped.These counts will be indicative of the average concentration ofrespirable DU in air over the previous one hour counting period (pCi/m³)and also the average concentration of U-238 in the respirable airborneparticles (pCi/mg). The CAM 10 may alarm if (1) the number of countsaccumulated over any one-hour period at the location of radiationworkers exceeds that associated with a DU air concentration of 7 pCi/m³or (2) if the number of counts accumulated over any one-hour period atthe remediation boundary or offsite locations exceeds that associatedwith a respirable airborne DU activity concentration of 0.24 pCi/m³.During testing of the CAM 10, sample collection time, air mover flowrates, counting intervals, etc. will be optimized to achieve thesegoals. In addition, the need for mitigation of electronic chargeaccumulation (electrostatic charge) will be investigated.

Based on the above analysis, the CAM 10 will be tested to confirm itsdesired performance. In addition, while the CAM 10 is being used in realtime, concurrent continuous air samples will be collected adjacent tothe locations of the real-time monitors, along with any lapel monitorsworn by workers. The lapel filters will be changed after each workershift and the general air samples filters will be changed out accordingto the standard practice used at the facility, and analyzed for DU usingconventional radio-analytical methods by a laboratory accredited forsuch analyses. The amounts and concentrations of DU as obtained from thelapel and general sample monitors using laboratory analyses will becompared with the results of the real-time monitor as a means to verifythat the real-time monitor is providing valid results.

As noted above, incorporated into the design of the CAM 10 are twofeatures that will help to optimize the functionality of the device andallow for recording the real-time concentration of airborne particles ofrespirable DU: particle size distribution and dust loading on thefilter. First, as the sample air enters the intake 20, the particle sizedistribution will be measured and expressed in units of diameter(microns) and/or aerodynamic diameter, and/or activity medianaerodynamic diameter (AMAD, also in units of microns). The AMADdistribution is important because the potential radiological hazard ofrespirable airborne DU particulates depends on the AMAD of theparticles. Table 4 presents the lifetime committed effective dose foradult workers and children (1-year old) as a function of the AMAD of theaerosols.

TABLE 4 Lifetime Committed Effective Dose for Inhalation of InsolubleU-238 for Adult Workers and for 1-Year Old from the Inhalation ofInsoluble U-238 (referred to as dose conversion factors or DCFs)* AMAD(microns) Adult Worker (Sv/Bq) 1 year old (Sv/Bq) 0.001 9.9E−6 2.2E−50.003 2.4E−5 5.6E−5 0.01 4.2E−5 1.3E−4 0.03 3.9E−5 1.5E−4 0.1 2.1E−59.2E−5 0.3 1.0E−5 4.7E−5 1.0 7.3E−6 2.2E−5 3.0 7.1E−6 2.0E−5 5.0 5.7E−61.5E−5 10.0 3.5E−6 9.1E−6 *Values obtained from the CD accompanying ICRP68 (1994) and ICRP 72 (1995).

The DCFs can vary by up to a factor of about 10 depending on the AMAD ofthe aerosol. This CAM 10 may operate on the default premise that theairborne particles of DU have an AMAD of 5 microns. This is the defaultassumption, which is recommended by the International Commission onRadiation Protection (ICRP) because it is representative of respirableairborne particles in general and also is associated with a relativelyhigh radiological hazard potential as compared to particles with largersizes.

The design of the CAM 10 includes a continuous optical air particulatemonitor that measures both the airborne particulate concentration (e.g.,micrograms/m³) and also the median aerodynamic diameter of the particles(which serves as a convenient surrogate for activity median aerodynamicdiameter (AMAD).

It is instructive to note the relationship between the diameter of aparticle and its associated aerodynamic diameter, as follows

dac=d(p/p*)^(1/2)  Equation 1

where:

dac=median aerodynamic diameter of the particle of interest (microns),

d=the median diameter of the particles deposited on the filter (microns)

p=1 gram per cm³,

p*=density of the particle of interest

The density of a particle of uranium dioxide is about 10.97 g/cm³. Themeasured median diameter of the particles deposited on the filter may beconverted to median aerodynamic diameter using this equation. Forexample, if the median diameter of the particles deposited on the filteris one micron and has a density of 10.97 g/cm³, its median aerodynamicdiameter is 0.3 microns. This conversion from measured diameter toaerodynamic diameter does not take into consideration how theradionuclides are distributed on the different sizes of the particlesdeposited on the web 46. Hence, this approach is only an approximationof the AMAD. The actual AMAD is unique to each air sample and cannot bedetermined in real time or routinely in laboratory analyses of thesample. It is the convention to treat median aerodynamic diameter asAMAD.

The CAM 10 will also continuously monitor the airborne dustconcentration. Algorithms are incorporated into the CAM 10 such that, ifthe airborne particulate concentration exceeds a level that couldsubstantively degrade the energy of the alpha emissions from U-238 onthe web 46 (i.e., a dust depth approaching 1E-3 cm), the CAM 10 will soindicate, and the user of the CAM 10 will be alerted. Under thesecircumstances, the data being compiled by the CAM 10 might substantiallyunderestimate the concentration of DU in the air and should not be usedas a means to protect workers or the public. However, as describedabove, the CAM 10 will employ a genetic algorithm that will preclude theunacceptable buildup of particulates on the filter. In addition, sincethe alpha spectrum will be continually displayed, a sudden change in theshape of the spectrum (a flattening and broadening of the spectralpeaks) will be indicative of the start of alpha self-attenuation andcorrective action can be taken to manually lower the air flow rateand/or sample collection time.

The algorithm is shown as process 600, shown in FIG. 6B. Process 600 maybe executed by processor 72 (FIG. 2A) as part of process 335 of FIG. 6A.Process 600 begins in block 610, when a sampling operation of the CAM 10begins with a specific intake airflow rate, for example 10 L/min, withthe airflow provided to or determined by the processor 72. In block 620,the processor 72 receives air particle size information from monitor 30(the air particle size is received continuously). In block 630, theprocessor 72 computes dust loading as a product of the particle sizeinformation, airflow rate, and sample time, and repeats the computationon a continuing basis. The dust loading may be computed as a depth ofparticles on a sample filter. In block 640, the processor 72 comparesthe computed dust loading to a predetermined set point, for example,1E-4 cm. In block 650, if the comparison shows dust loading is at,approaches, or will exceed the set point (which indicates the possibleonset of alpha self-attenuation), the processor 72 provides a signal tooperating personnel so that action may be taken to lower the airflowrate, or to stop the sample collection and proceed to sample counting.Alternately, the processor may automatically adjust airflow rate or stopsample collection and move to sample counting.

In addition, it is widely recognized that inhaled or ingested uranium isboth chemically and radiologically toxic. The CAM 10 is designed toquickly identify conditions where the airborne mass concentration of DUmight be radiologically toxic. A vast body of literature describes thechemical toxicity of inhaled and ingested uranium (see EPA 2006 andRostker 2017)). Section 2.2.2 of EPA 2006 explains that “DU particlesand oxides retained in the body have different solubilities. The threeoxides of primary concern (UO₂, UO₃, and U₃O₈) are relatively insoluble.Insoluble and sparingly soluble compounds are believed to have littlepotential to cause renal toxicity but could cause pulmonary toxicitythrough inhalation.”

EPA 2006 also states that (also see ATSDR 2013) “ATSDR has a ‘minimalrisk’ level for intermediate ingestion set at an oral intake of 2 μg ofuranium per kg of body weight per day, though the World HealthOrganization (WHO) has established a tolerable daily intake (TDI) foruranium of 0.6 μg/kg body weight per day.”

Note that these limits are for ingestion and for forms of uranium thatwould be absorbed into the blood stream. At an airborne concentration of7 pCi/m³, the mass of uranium inhaled in one hour would be:

7 pCi/m³×0.037 Bq/pCi×1.2 m³/hr÷12440 Bq/g=2.5E-5 g/hr=25 μg/hr.

Of this quantity, about 0.04 (or 4 percent; Federal Guidance Report No.13 indicates that soluble forms of uranium have an absorption fractionof 0.04 for infants) would be absorbed into the blood and distributedthroughout the body. Assuming a reference adult of 70 kg, an intake andabsorption of 42 μg per day is required to exceed the TDI. Hence, at anairborne activity concentration of soluble uranium of 7 pCi/m³, theabsorption rate of uranium into the bloodstream would be about 8 μg/dayor about 0.1 μg/kg-day. On this basis, the TDI would not be exceeded.However, in the above calculation, the inventor applied an absorptionfactor of 0.04. It is not apparent whether this is appropriate based onthe definition of TDI. If a factor of 0.04 is not applied, the intakeassociated with 7 pCi/m³ would be 2.5 μg/kg-day, well above the TDI of0.6 μg/kg-day.

Rostker 2017 provides a comprehensive review of DU and its potentialharmful effects. With respect to chemical toxicity, Rostker 2017 statesthe following:

-   -   Operational guidelines based on the MPOC [maximum permissible        organ concentration] suggest temporary and permanent kidney        effects may occur for inhaled soluble DU intakes above 8        milligrams (mg) and 40 mg, respectively. [32]⁴ These values may        need to be adjusted for specific situations.[33] For example, in        10 CFR 20.1201(e), [34] the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)        includes a requirement to limit soluble uranium intakes to 10 mg        in a week in consideration of uranium's chemical toxicity. The        NRC extended this guidance in 10 CFR 76 to assessing the        adequacy of protecting the health of the public from accidents        involving uranium at gaseous diffusion plants. The final        guidance establishing 10 CFR 76 (59 Federal Register (FR) 48944,        Sep. 23, 1994) specifically stated, “The NRC will consider        whether the potential consequences of a reasonable spectrum of        postulated accident scenarios exceed 0.25 Sv (25 rem), or        uranium intakes of 30 mg.”⁴ Reference [32] in the quote is        Health Physics Society, Bioassay Programs for Uranium: An        American National Standard, HPS N13.22-1995, McLean, Va., p. 34.

-   Reference 33 in the quote is Harley, Naomi, Earnest Foulkes, Lee    Hilborne, Arlene Hudson, and C. Ross Anthony, “A Review of the    Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses,” Volume    7, “Depleted Uranium,” Washington, D.C.: RAND, National Defense    Research Institute, 1999, p. 33.

-   Reference 36 in the quote is American Conference of Governmental    Industrial Hygienists, 1999 TLVs and BEIs, Threshold Limit Values    for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents, Biological Exposure    Indices, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1999, p. 4.    -   Few human studies verify kidney damage at these thresholds—even        under exposure conditions of a single exposure to soluble        uranium compounds that exceed occupational limits. These intake        thresholds are worst-case benchmarks because they assume intakes        of soluble uranium during a single exposure and therefore do not        take into account the body's ability to eliminate 90 percent of        uranium from the blood every 3 days. Gulf War veterans who were        exposed to depleted uranium generally experienced repeated,        small contacts with insoluble forms of uranium, an exposure        scenario that would be expected to produce even less kidney        damage.    -   The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and        American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists        (ACGIH) have established long- and short-term occupational        exposure standards for uranium inhalation by workers based on        uranium's chemical toxicity to the kidney. OSHA's Permissible        Exposure Levels (PELs) and the ACGIH's Threshold Limit Values        (TLV®) are based on the principle that a threshold exists below        which no adverse health effects occur. As the exposure increases        above the threshold, the adverse health effect becomes more        severe. Both the PEL and the TLV® are “time-weighted average        concentration[35] for a conventional 8-hour workday and 40-hour        workweek, to which it is believed nearly all workers may be        repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. ”[36]

Chronic exposure of soluble natural uranium at concentrations of 7pCi/m³ for 2000 work hours per year constitutes an intake of about 25mg.

The implications of the above discussions and calculations are thatchemical toxicity could be limiting if there is reason to believe thatthe DU is in a form other than the insoluble forms described above. Alarge body of research (see the above references to the March 2009 issueof Health Physics) indicates that the DU aerosols produced duringmunitions testing initially could be relatively soluble, representing apossible chemical toxin. In order to ensure that the exposed individualsare not inhaling chemically toxic quantities of DU, periodic (i.e., asfrequently as deemed necessary by the organization performing thetesting) urine samples will be required at a site to confirm that theintake of DU experienced by the workers is not chemically toxic. If theuranium is insoluble, very little uranium will be detected in urine. Ifsoluble, uranium will be readily detected in a 24-hour urine samplecollected one month after chronic exposure. The following table presentsthe normalized excretion rate of uranium in urine following inhalationand ingestion of both insoluble and soluble forms of uranium.

TABLE 5 Normalized Excretion Rate (pCi/day of uranium excreted in urineand pCi/L of uranium in urine) Assuming a Chronic Intake Rate of 1pCi/day of Uranium by Inhalation and Ingestion Inhalation Ingestion Dayafter Soluble Soluble Start of Insoluble (pCi/day and Insoluble (pCi/dayand Chronic (pCi/day and pCi/L in (pCi/day and pCi/L in Intake pCi/L inUrine Urine pCi/L in Urine Urine 10 8.97E−4 and 2.18E−1 and 1.52E−3 and1.53E−2 and 6.4E−4 0.16 1.09E−3 1.09E−2 20 1.02E−3 and 2.37E−1 and1.66E−3 and 1.66E−2 and 7.3E−4 0.17 1.19E−3 1.19E−2 30 1.11E−3 and2.46E−1 and 1.73E−3 and 1.73E−2 and 7.9E−4 0.16 1.24E−3 1.24E−2

The set point for the CAM 10 may be 7 pCi/m³ for DU in air, whichcorresponds to a daily inhalation rate of 67 pCi/day (i.e., 7 pCi/m³×1.2m³ per hr inhalation rate×8 hours per work day). At this inhalationrate, the concentration of uranium in urine at the end of 30 days ofchronic inhalation would 0.05 pCi/L for insoluble uranium, but it wouldbe 10.72 pCi/L for soluble uranium.

According to Manickam, et. al., 2007, “the typical minimum detectableconcentration for total uranium for a 24-h urine sample is approximately0.6 mBq/day or 0.19 μg/day.” This corresponds to a urinary excretionrate of 0.0162 pCi/day or a concentration of uranium in urine of 0.012pCi/L. The implications of this analysis are that, at the end of onemonth of chronic worker exposure to a uranium airborne concentration of7 pCi/m³, the concentration of uranium in urine would be 0.05 pCi/L(slightly above the limit of detection) if the inhaled uranium isinsoluble. However, if the inhaled uranium is soluble, the concentrationin urine would be 10.72 pCi/L. Accordingly, urine samples will be ableto readily reveal whether the inhaled uranium was soluble or insoluble,and a determination could be made whether the set point for the detectoris or is not protective of workers, considering the possibility of thepotential chemically toxic effects of inhaled uranium.

Other features of the CAM 10 that aide in determining if the potentialfor toxicological damage to kidneys is present include a second opticalsensor upstream of the prefilter to measure the airborne concentrationsof particles that are greater than 10 microns. This information willhelp in determining the total amount of DU being inhaled, not just therespirable size particles. This could be important if the DU is in amore chemically soluble form. Under these circumstances, the inhaled (oringested) DU is more readily absorbed into the bloodstream, transportedto internal organs in the body, and may cause toxicological, as opposedto radiological damage, especially to the kidneys (as described herein).

FIGS. 6A and 6B presents example operations of the CAM 10 expressed inthe form of a flowchart. In FIG. 6A, CAM 10 operation 300 begins inblock 305 where the CAM 10 is powered up and various start up routinesare executed and the CAM 10 is configured. The CAM 10 also executesvarious self-check routines and, if applicable, notifies a remotemonitor that the CAM 10 is operational and operating. The operation thenmoves to block 310.

In block 310, the motor 52 starts to operate impeller 54 to achieve thedesired airflow. The airflow to be achieved may take into account thesampling environment in terms of expected airborne DU concentration,expected dust loading on the web 46, required sample time, power mode ofthe CAM 10, and other factors.

In block 315, in an embodiment, the processor 72 uses a default value,such as 5 microns, for the AMAD. In another embodiment, the processor 72executes an algorithm to approximate the value of AMAD using datacollected from the site at which the CAM 10 operates. In thisembodiment, the processor 72 may execute the algorithm of Equation 1,above, namely dac=d (p/p*)^(1/2) using data collected by the mechanism30.

In block 320 the processor 72 controls the CAM 10 to take an air samplefor a desired duration, such as, for example, one hour.

In block 325, after the required sampling time, the processor 72 causesthe motor to stop.

In block 330, the processor 72 causes the web 46 to advance to thecounting location 46B, where the collected sample may wait for decay ofshort-lived radionuclides before counting begins. Alternately, thecounting delay may be accommodated by holding the collected sample atthe sampling location 46A for the decay to occur.

In block 335 the processor 72 executes an algorithm to compute dustloading on the web 46 for the collected sample. To compute dust loading,the processor 72 may execute an algorithm that takes into account sampletime, sample flow rate, and default, measured, or estimated airborneparticulate concentration in the sampled environment. If the deriveddust concentration (dust loading) on the filter indicates possibleshielding of alphas by an amount exceeding a limit, the CAM 10 may sosignal to operating personal.

Note that as with all steps (blocks) in the operation 300 certain stepsmay be executed in orders different from that illustrated, and somesteps (e.g., blocks 330 and 335) may be performed simultaneously.

In block 340, with the collected sample at the counting location 46B,and optionally a light-tight configuration of the detector housing, theprocessor 72 may operate the detector 60 to count the sample for alphaemissions for a designated period, such as one hour.

In block 345, the processor may compute DU concentration and may storeand report data collected, measurements made, and computational resultsfor the just completed air sample.

In block 350, the processor 72 determines if additional samples are tobe collected and measured. If additional samples are to be collected andmeasured, the operation 300 returns to block 310. Note, however, thatthis determination may be made in advance of the sequence illustrated inFIG. 6A, and that if an additional air sample is to be obtained, theoperation 300 returns to block 310 at the time of sample countingprovided for in block 340. If no additional samples are to be obtained,the operation 300 moves to block 355 and ends. In an embodiment as partof the operation 300 executed at block 355, the CAM 10 may shut down or,alternatively, enter a low power or sleep mode, especially if operatingin a battery mode, so as to conserve electrical power.

In view of the above description, Applicant has developed a novel andnon-obvious design for a real time continuous air monitor for depleteduranium in the respirable range. A summary of some of the salient, novelfeatures of the CAM 10 includes:

-   -   1. The CAM 10 is designed to detect and measure the        concentration of only DU at a site in the region of interest        where the only alpha-emitting manmade contamination is DU.    -   2. The CAM 10 continuously monitors the particle size        distribution and uses this information to adjust the alarm set        point for the device.    -   3. The CAM 10 counts the number of pulses in the U-238 region of        interest and performs no spectral stripping to determine the        concentration of U-238 in air.    -   4. The CAM 10 continually monitors the airborne dust loading on        the web 46 and alerts the operator when the airborne dust        concentration is so high that the airborne concentrations of DU        reported by the CAM 10 would underestimate the airborne        concentration of DU and cannot be used.    -   5. The CAM 10 can operate in a near autonomous and unattended        state with all sampling operations under control of a local        and/or remote processor and without the need for frequent        removal of a sample filter.    -   6. Based on knowledge of the average hourly concentration of        respirable DU dust on the filter (pCi/mg) and the data        continuously monitoring the concentration of airborne dust        (mg/m³), real time concentrations of airborne concentrations of        respirable DU (pCi/m³) can be continuously estimated.

In more detail, unlike current alpha particle detectors, the CAM 10eliminates the need to employ a spectral stripping algorithm, with itsattendant uncertainties, to address the possible false positivesstemming from the presence of radon and thoron progeny in an air sample.Instead, the CAM 10 eliminates the possibility of false positives bycounting the alpha particles that deposit their energy in the region ofinterest associated with the decay of U-238. This approach for countingalpha emissions from U-238 can be accomplished because the energy of thealpha emissions associated with the decay of Po-218 and Po-214 are muchhigher than that of U-238 (see FIG. 3), and, as a result, the alphaemissions from Po-218 and Po-214 do not contribute to the energy regionof interest for the alpha emission associated with the decay of U-238.

The CAM 10 also eliminates the need to address possible false positivesfrom beta particles that might deposit energy and result in falsepositive counts. This is because beta emissions associated with any ofthe radionuclides that might be deposited on the web 46 will not depositenergy in the region of interest and result in false positives.

Unlike current airborne alpha instruments, the CAM 10 eliminates theneed to perform spectral stripping to remove the lower end energy tailsassociated with alpha emitters to enable an instrument to discriminateamong alpha emitters present in an air sample. The CAM 10 alsoeliminates the need to employ coincidence counting to take advantage ofthe short half-life of some alpha emitters, and accommodate countscontributed by beta emitters.

Unlike current airborne alpha instruments, the CAM 10 can accuratelycount alpha emissions in a dusty environment. At least two features ofthe CAM 10 provide this capability: the inclusion of an optional dustloading measurement device and a movable web for collecting air samplesand then reading the air sample.

Confirmatory Experiments

FIGS. 1-6B and their accompanying descriptions disclose a design for acontinuous air monitor (i.e., the CAM 10) intended for detecting alphaparticles emitted during radioactive decay of depleted uranium. Thissection describes a series of experiments that were performed in alaboratory environment to demonstrate that the CAM 10 meets its designspecifications under the following air sampling conditions:

-   -   an air sampling period of less than 1 hour,    -   an air sampling rate of less than 10 L/minute,    -   followed shortly thereafter by a counting time interval of less        than 1 hour.

Note that these air sampling conditions are merely examples, and longeror shorter periods may be used. The inventor designed the experiments toshow that under these sampling and counting conditions, the CAM 10 willbe able to continuously and unambiguously detect and quantify theconcentration of U-238 and any other isotope of uranium that might bepresent in the air at concentrations that could result in committedeffective doses to radiation workers due to inhalation in excess of 10%of the radiation protection standards (i.e., 500 mrem/yr effective dosecommitment) if the exposures persist over a 2000-hour work year.⁵ Inaddition, the CAM 10 will achieve this objective in the presence of achronic dust loading up to about 1 to 5 mg/m³. As noted herein, such adust loading is relatively high compared to typical airborne dustloadings indoors and outdoors under quiescent conditions where therespirable dust concentrations are on the order of tens of microgramsper cubic meter. As a reference point, the threshold limit value foroccupational exposure to respirable dust (i.e., <10 micron aerodynamicdiameter, referred to as particulates not otherwise regulated) is 5mg/m³, and the limit for total dust particulates not otherwise regulatedis 15 mg/m³ (see 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z-1, Limits for AirContaminants). This means that in working environments where theairborne dust loading is higher than these values, some type ofintervention is required. ⁵ 10 CFR 20.1201 (a) states that “The licenseeshall control the occupational dose to individual adults, except forplanned special exposures under Part 20.1206, to the following doselimits (1) Annual limit, which is the more limiting of—(1) the totaleffective dose equivalent being equal to 5 rem (0.05 Sv); or (ii) thesum of the deep dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to anyindividual organ or tissue other than the lens of the eye being equal to50 rems (0.5 Sv).

In addition, under the same set of sampling and counting conditionsnoted above, the CAM 10 will be able to clearly and unambiguouslycontinuously detect and quantify the concentration of U-238 and anyother isotope of uranium that might be present in ambient air atconcentrations that exceed 50% of the concentrations that could resultin committed effective doses in excess of the radiation protectionstandards for members of the public from all potential exposure pathways(i.e., 50 mrem/yr to the most sensitive members of the generalpopulation).⁶ ⁶ 1—CFR 20.1301 states that “(a) Each licensee shallconduct operations so that (1) The total effective dose equivalent toindividual members of the general public from the licensed operationdoes not exceed 0.1 rem (1 millisievert) in a year, exclusive of thedose contributed from background radiation, from any medicaladministration the individual has received, from exposures toindividuals administered radioactive material and released in accordancewith part 35.75 from voluntary participation in medical researchprograms, and from the licensees disposal of radioactive material intosanitary sewage in accordance with Part 20.2003.

Anticipated Performance

The anticipated performance of the CAM 10 includes three factors:

-   -   1. No counts in the region of interest when no radioactivity is        deposited on the filter

In theory, no counts in the energy region of interest (i.e., >3 MeV to 8MeV) should be recorded after one hour of counting if no radioactivematerial is present on the filter medium.

-   -   2. Naturally occurring alpha-emitters ubiquitously present in        outdoor and indoor air can be detected, accurately counted, and        most importantly, will not contribute counts to the uranium        energy region of interest (i.e., 3.0 to 4.8 MeV).

Naturally occurring radon is ubiquitous in outdoor air at about 0.1 to 1pCi/L, while the concentrations of radon indoors typically range from0.1 to occasionally several pCi/L. The short-lived progeny of radon arereported to be at about 50% of the radon concentration both indoors andoutdoors. UNSCEAR 1993 presents an extensive discussion of this matter.The presence of radon and its progeny represent a challenge to theability of the CAM 10 to achieve its design objectives because, intheory, the alpha-emitting short-lived progeny of radon can contributealpha counts to the alpha emission region of interest for uranium,resulting in false positives.

In theory, if ambient air in the laboratory is passed through a filtermedium for 1 hour at a flow rate of 10 I/min and then immediatelycounted on the solid-state detector for 1 hour, the only naturallyoccurring alpha emitters present in the air in the lab that could bedeposited on the filter media in any substantive quantity are Po-214(20-minute half-life with Ea=7.833 MeV) and Po-218 (3-minute half-lifewith Ea=6.114 MeV).

These counts would occur in the energy region of interest for theseradionuclides. Specifically, assuming that the resolution of the CAM 10solid state detector is about 200 keV, as cited in its specifications,virtually all of the Po-218 counts would occur in the energy range ofabove about 5.7 MeV to a maximum of 6.114 MeV, with the peak at 6.114MeV. For Po-214, virtually all the Po-214 counts would occur in theenergy range of no less than about 7.0 MeV to a maximum of 7.883 MeV,with the peak at 7.883 MeV.

The inventor did not expect any counts from these two radionuclides tooccur in the energy range of the uranium isotopes associated withdepleted uranium (which is expected to occur in an energy range no lessthan 3.0 MeV to no greater than 4.8 MeV, with a peak at 4.2 MeV) becausethe inventors did not expect the alphas from Po-214 and Po-218 to besubstantively attenuated under the conditions of sampling and countingthe air particulate samples collected and counted by the CAM 10. Theinventor believes this to be the case because of the following:

-   -   The Po-214 and Po-218 atoms are deposited on the surface of the        filter media and do not embed inside the matrix of the filter        media because the filter media was selected to avoid deposition        of the particles deep into the filter media, where, if such        deposition were to occur, the alpha particles could be        attenuated by the filter media; and    -   The amount of the air particulates deposited on the filter        media, along with the isotopes of polonium, is expected to be        quite small because the concentration of the airborne dust in        the laboratory was determined to range from 2 to 20 μg/m³. At        this concentration, the amount of dust deposited on the filter        media was expected be:

10 μg/max 10 L/min×60 min×1E-3 m³/L×1E-3 mg/μg=0.006 mg.

Assuming that the density of the dust on the filter media is about 2g/cm³ and the area of the filter paper is 450 mm², the thickness of thedust deposit on the filter media is estimated as:

0.006 mg/450 mm²×100 mm²/cm²÷(2 g/cm²×1000 mg/g)=6.67E-7 cm.

According to the literature summarized herein, the range of alphaemitters in the 5 MeV range in media with a density of about 2 g/cm³ isabout 1E-3 cm. Hence, no appreciable attenuation of the alpha emissionsfrom particulates on the filter media is anticipated due to the dustdeposited on the filter media. In a similar manner, the alpha particlesare not anticipated to be attenuated by the approximate 1 to 2 mm airgap between the filter media and the CAM 10 solid state detector becausethe median range in air of alpha particles (i.e., the distance an alphaparticle will travel) is typically about 3 cm.

-   -   3. The airborne concentration of isotopes of uranium associated        with depleted uranium can be continuously detected and        quantified at the desired level of sensitivity, and the alpha        emissions will not be substantively attenuated by the presence        of the DU or elevated levels of other airborne particulates, as        might occur at DU remediation and/or munitions testing sites.

One design objective of the CAM 10 is to be able to accurately measurethe concentration of airborne U-238 at a concentration of 7 pCi/m³ whenpresent in the air with a known concentration of respirable particles(mg/m³). Let us assume the following:

-   -   the airborne concentration of particulates at a site is 1 mg/m³;        and    -   the air is sampled for 1 hour at a rate of 10 L/min. Under these        conditions, the amount of airborne particles deposited on the        filter media would be 0.6 mg (i.e., 1 mg/m³×10 L/min×1E-3        m³/L×60 min/hr). This amount of particulate material would have        a thickness of about 6.67E-5 cm (0.6 mg/450 mm²×100 mm²/cm²×1E-3        g/mg÷2 g/cm³=6.67E-5 cm). This thickness of fine particles on        the filter media was not anticipated to attenuate the 4.2 MeV        alphas associated with the decay of U-238 because the range of        these alpha particles is on the order of 1E-3 cm in the soil        particulates on the filter media. The implications are that the        count obtained from each individual filter of the CAM 10 would        be reliable for several hours assuming that the average        concentration of the airborne dust in the respirable range        during sampling is about 1 mg/m³. The airborne dust loading of        respirable particles will be continuously monitored and alarm        when the total dust loading on the filter media becomes so high        that it has the potential to substantially attenuate the alpha        particles emitted from the uranium on the filter media. In        addition, the genetic algorithm will help to preclude the        unacceptable buildup of dust particles on the filter.

The amount of uranium oxide that would be deposited onto the filtermedia would be 4.2 pCi (7 pCi/m³×10 L/min×1E-3 m³/L×60 min/hr=4.2 pCi).The number of counts on the CAM 10 associated with 4.2 pCi of uraniumcounted for 1 hour would be 140 counts (4.2 pCi×0.037 dis/sec-pCi×3600sec/hr×0.25=140 counts in one hour). These are the number of counts theinventors anticipated in the region of interest for U-238, which isabout 3.0 to 4.8 MeV. The number of counts should not degrade until thedust loading on the filter media approaches the range of the alphaparticles in the surrogate soil deposited on the filter media (i.e.,about 1E-3 cm).

One of the inventor's design objectives is to be able to detect thepresence of airborne respirable U-238 at a concentration of 0.24 pCi/m³.This is the concentration associated with a dose of 50 mrem per year tothe limiting member of the general public from all potential exposurepathways. This concentration is about 30 times lower than the 7 pCi/m³detection limit established for the protection of radiation workers.Hence, the number of counts in the region of interest associated withthis airborne concentration of respirable U-238 is 140/30=4.7 countsfollowing 1 hour of sampling at a sample rate of 10 L/min followed bycounting the sample on the CAM 10 for 1 hour.

Design and Results of Actual Testing of the CAM 10 Breadboard

To confirm the detectors performance, the inventor built a bread boardmodel of the detector and ran a number of preliminary experiments toconfirm the predicted performance and capabilities of the detector. Thebread board model confirmed the following performance aspects of the CAM10:

-   -   Ability to count DU alphas;    -   Ability to distinguish DU alphas from alphas from other isotopes        such as polonium 214; and    -   Ability of the optical sensor to provide reliable measurements        of respirable concentrations of airborne particulates.

Disclosed below are the bread board model and certain of its components,the experimental designs, and the experimental results.

The bread board model was configured to include important components ofthe CAM 10 of FIG. 1. FIGS. 8-12 show bread board 400, it's components,and results of experiments using the bread board 400. In FIG. 8, breadboard 400 includes aerosol production mechanism 410, particulatesampling chamber 420, counting chamber 440, electronics and analysischain 480, and processor system 500. The aerosol production mechanism410 includes vibration table 411, aerosol chamber 412, cover 413, andtube 414. To conduct the experiments disclosed herein, the inventorintroduced specific quantities of soil particles, into the aerosolchamber 412 and then operated the vibration table 411 to vibrate theaerosol chamber 412, thereby causing the particles to become airborne.The tube is kept short and straight to minimize particle deposition inthe tube 414.

The particulate sampling chamber 420 receives the aerosol particles fromthe tube 414, directing the aerosol particles into optical particlecounter 430, described in more detail with respect to FIGS. 9A-9C. Aftercounting in the particle counter 430, the particles move through tube421 to sampling chamber 440.

The sampling chamber 440 includes filter mechanism 450 and an air mover(not shown). Following sampling, a filter media is moved to the solidstate detector 460 where the sample is counted. The detector 460 iscoupled to, electronic output 470 and 480, and processor system 490. Thedetector 460 is shown in more detail in FIGS. 10 and 11. The processorsystem 490 executes machine instructions such as those disclosed withrespect to FIGS. 6A and 6B to control some components of the bread board400 and to display experimental results.

The first set of experiments made use of the naturally occurring alphaemitters present in the air in the laboratory. A brief explanation ofthe source of naturally occurring alpha emitters both indoors and outdoor is instructive in terms of understanding the first set ofexperiments performed to confirm that the CAM 10 achieves its designobjectives.

FIG. 15 presents the naturally occurring decay series for radium-226(Ra-226) and its progeny. All soil contains naturally occurring Ra-226,which decays to the noble gas radon-222 (Rn-222). As Ra-226 decays, ittransforms to Rn-222 which then leaves the soil and enters theatmosphere. If there is a structure sitting on the soil, the Rn-222enters the structure. Each atom of Rn-222 then undergoes a series ofdisintegrations, producing what is referred to as radon progeny, some ofwhich emit beta particles with energies well below the energy ofinterest of the alpha emission associated with the decay of DU. Theelectronic pulses produced in the detector by these beta particles areof no concern to the CAM-10 because a discriminator can be used toeliminate any electronic pulses of electrons produced in the detectorthat are below the energy region of interest of the CAM 10. However, twoof these progeny, Po-218 and Po-214, are of special interest to theinventor because they are alpha emitters that have energies that areabove the energy region of interest for detecting the alpha emissionsfrom DU. The presence of these radionuclides in air can result in falsepositives when trying to detect the amount of DU that may be in theatmosphere. In addition, these two alpha emitters are useful in testingthe performance of the CAM 10.

Before beginning the experiments, a calibration test was run with anAm-241 source to confirm that the solid state detector was performingcorrectly. FIG. 19 presents the spectra obtained from counting theAm-241 source.

This spectra is best understood by comparing it to the energy spectra ofthe alpha emissions associated Am-241, as provided in Table 7.

TABLE 7 Intensity of Alpha Emissions from Am-241 (T½ = 432.2 years)*Alpha Energy Relative Intensity per disintegration 5.388 0.014 5.4430.128 5.486 0.852 5.512 0.0020 5.443 0.0034 5.308 0.000339 *From Table8.14 of Shleien, et. al, 1998

From a practical perspective, it can be assumed that 0.852 of the alphaemitted by Am-241 have an energy of 5.486 MeV and 0.128 of the alphaemissions have an energy of 5.443 MeV. The other alpha emissions arevery infrequent and cannot be discerned as separate peaks on thespectra. In addition, the full width at half maximum (FWHM) appears tobe about 0.025 keV, as expected as specified in the documentationprovided by the detector vendor. This spectra confirms that the detector60 is performing as expected.

The first set of experiments involve drawing samples of air through afilter and depositing the air particulates, including the Po-218 andPo-214, onto the filter and then counting the alpha activity on thefilter and creating an alpha spectrum of these emissions. Theexperiments were conducted using the breadboard model, shownconceptually in FIG. 8. Components of the breadboard model are shown inFIGS. 9A-12.

FIGS. 9A-9C illustrate optical particle counter 430. The counter 430used in the bread board 10 is the Alphasense OPC-N2 Particle Countermanufactured by Sensor Technology House, 300. Avenue West, Skyline 120,Great Notley, Essex CM77 7AA, United Kingdom.

FIGS. 10 and 11 illustrate the silicon oxide solid state detector 460.The detector 460 is a SIID-450 model obtained from Baltic ScientificInstruments, LTD, Ganiber Dambis 26, Riga, Latvia. In FIG. 10, detector460 includes top and bottom housing elements 461 and 463. The housingelements, when assembled, enclose detector element 465 and solid-statesurface barrier 467.

FIG. 11 is a schematic of the detector showing its dimensions and twoversions with different electrical connectors (465 and 465′). The activesensitive area of the detector 460 is a disc 467 with a diameter of 23.9mm and a surface area of 450 mm². Noteworthy is that the face of thesemi-conductor sensor has protective film (not shown) with a thicknessof 0.05 micron. This inert/transparent layer protects the active area ofthe detector 460 and allows the surface to be cleaned. In addition, theprotective film is extremely thin and will not attenuate alpha particlesstriking the surface of the detector 460.

The housing 461/463 also has a cylindrical rim 462 of approximately 1mm. This rim allows a filter containing radioisotopes to be placedagainst the face of the detector 460, but offset at a distance of 1 mm.This separation is useful because the filter containing particles ofradionuclides will be placed facing the surface of the detector 460 butwill not touch and contaminate the active area of the detector 460.However, since the distance between the filter and the sensitive area ofthe detector 460 is only 1 mm, the air gap is not large enough toattenuate alpha particles emitted from radionuclides deposited on thefilter surface. As discussed above, the range of typical alpha particles(5 MeV) is about 30 mm in air.

Table 8 presents the fundamental performance specification of the solidstate semi-conductor detector 460. Noteworthy is the alpha energyresolution of <25 keV⁷ full width at half maximum (FWHM) at an alphaenergy of 5.1 MeV. This is important because any alpha emittersdeposited into the filter, such as Po-214 and Po-218, will not depositcounts in the energy region of interest for alpha emission from DU. ⁷This is the FWHM for the detector itself. However, after passing thepulses through the amplifier and other electronics, the actual FWHMobserved in the spectra is closer to 200 keV.

TABLE 8 Detector Performance Specifications Parameter Value Area of Siimplanted detector's open part, mm 450 Thickness of Si implanteddetector, μm 400 Dead layer, μm 0.25 Reversed leakage current at 70 V,nA ≤30 Depletion bias, V 25 Detector capacity at depletion bias, pF ≤200Optimal operating voltage of Si implanted detector, V 50 Alpha energyresolution (opened) - FWHM ≤18 (241 Am), keV at 5.1 MeV (241 Am), keVAlpha energy resolution (300 nm Al metalized)- ≤25 FWHM at 5.1 MeV (241Am), keV Dimensions of detector unit, height, mm × diameter, 12.3 × 32mm

Alpha (and beta particles) that strike the surface barrier 467 of thedetector 460 will deposit their energy in the sensitive layer of thedetector and generate pulses of elections that will drift to theconduction band of the detector, where they will be swept away throughthe coaxial cable 469 to the electronic and analysis chain 480. See FIG.12.

FIG. 12 shows the electronic and analysis chain 480, which includescharge sensitive preamplifier 481, shaping amplifier 483, andoscilloscope 485. The preamplifier 481 is a Cremat CR-110 single channelcharge sensitive preamplifier, obtained from Cremat Inc., 950 WatertownSt. #3, West Newton, Mass. The shaping amplifier 483 is a CrematCR-200-1 Gaussian Shaping Amplifier. The output of the shaping amplifier483 is a time-stamped sequence of amplified and shaped pulses ofelectrons individually having voltages that are directly proportional tothe energy of the alpha or beta particles that deposit their energy inthe sensitive volume of the surface barrier detector 430.

Each of these pulses is sent to oscilloscope 485, which counts eacharriving pulse (in units of millivolts), sorts the pulses according to apulse size, and then converts the pulse size using a voltage to MeVconversion factor, as described above for Am-241.

FIG. 13 illustrates aerosol concentration in a laboratory (lab) housingthe CAM 10 bread board model. Line PM 10 provides the measuredconcentration of aerosols in the lab with an aerodynamic diameter of 10microns or less over a several hours period. Measurements were madeevery second. Note that, in these measurements, the concentration ofrespirable aerosols varies over a range of 2 to 10 microns/m³. In othersuch measurements, the respirable aerosol concentrations ranged fromabout 2 to 25 micrograms per m³. From a review of the literature, thisrange of concentrations of respirable particles in indoor air iscommonplace. The concentration of PM 10 appears to be higher whenindividuals are walking around the lab, and then go down to about 2microgram/m³ (lines PM 1 and 2.5) when no one is in the lab.

In order to evaluate the performance of the CAM 10 breadboard, a numberof simple experiments were performed.

Experiment 1

In the first experiment, approximately 2 to 5 mg of naturally uraniumoxide powder was directly deposited onto the filter medium and countedfor 10 minutes. FIG. 16 shows the spectrum obtained from this experimentin which 2-5 mg of uranium oxide powder deposited on filter media andcounted for 10 minutes.

The alpha energies emitted by natural uranium include primarily 4.8 and4.2 MeV alphas from U-238 and U-234. However, the spectrum is somewhatirregular between about 2 to 5 MeV because of two factors. The first isthat the uranium oxide powder has a range of diameters from severalmicrons to approximately a mm (information as provided by the vendor).In addition, a crude energy conversion factor was employed to convertmillivolts (which is the output of the counter) to MeV. Experiments arecontinuing to obtain a more refined spectrum. Noteworthy is that nocounts are observed outside the region of interest for the alphas fromuranium, and, more importantly, clear and unambiguous counts from theuranium alpha emissions are being obtained from the solid state detectorand its associated signal processing, as described above.

The total number of counts integrated under the uranium spectrum is 9250counts. The following is a check on the reasonableness of this totalcount assuming that about 2 mg of uranium oxide was deposited onto thefilter medium (assuming 25% efficiency of the detector as specified bythe vendor):

2 mg×683 pCi/mg×0.037 dis/sec per pCi×10 min×60 sec/min×0.25=7581counts.

Given the uncertainty in the number of mg of uranium oxide deposited onthe filter and the uncertainty in efficiency, these results certainlyappear to confirm that the CAM 10 breadboard performed adequately.

Experiment 2

A second experiment with uranium was performed by first placing about500 mg of uranium oxide powder in a mortar and pestle and grinding downthe powder. The ground uranium oxide powder was then passed through a 5micron filter and particles that passed through the filter werecollected. About 1 microgram of the <5 micron uranium oxide powder waspaced on the filter and recounted for 1 second and then for 1 minute.FIG. 17 (Spectra associated with a 1 second count of approximately 1 mgof naturally occurring uranium oxide powder with particles less than 5micron in diameter) presents the spectra obtained from these alphacounts. A total of 94 alpha counts were obtained for the 1 second count.The expected number of counts for a 1 mg sample would be as follows:

1 mg×683 pCi/mg×0.037 dis/sec per pCi×0.25=76.3 counts.

The observed total count of 94 per second is compatible with ananticipated total count of 76.3 counts. The small difference is likelydue to uncertainty in the amount of uranium oxide powder placed on thefilter.

The alpha energy of the U-238 and U-234 that make up the majority of theuranium in the sample are 4.2 and 4.8 MeV. The spectrum seemsreasonable, except that, given the 200 keV FWHM of the detector, weshould see very few or no counts below about 3.0 MeV. However, thereappear to be some low energy stragglers. Additional work is being doneto refine the signal processing to reduce straggling in the spectra.

Experiment 3

An air sample was collected for several hours and then counted after adelay to allow the Po-218 with a 3-minute half-life to decay away. Thisleft the Bi-214 (relatively low energy beta emitter with a 19-minutehalf-life) and its progeny, Po-214, with its 7.7 MeV alpha emissions.FIG. 14 presents the spectrum associated with this air sample. Thefigure clearly shows the presence of Po-214. However, there are alsoseveral smaller lines to the left of the Po-214 alpha peak that areelectronic pulse artifacts that will be removed after corrections aremade to signal nose associated with the counting electronics.

CONCLUSION

Current alpha monitors are designed to, and do, operate in a specificenvironment that often requires use of a vacuum chamber and algorithmsfor spectral stripping; the monitors are intended to be used indoors andprimarily in support of operations involving a number of different alphaemitters. In contrast, the CAM 10 is intended for use in a verydifferent environment and is designed with features different from andnot suggested by current monitoring devices.

REFERENCES

In describing the CAM 10, the preceding specification cites thefollowing references:

-   ATSDR 2013. Toxicological Profile for Uranium, U.S. Department of    Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease    Registry, February 2013.-   Besic, L., I. Muhovic, A. Adna, A. Kurtovic-Kozaric 2017,    Meta-analysis of depleted uranium levels in the Nalkan region,    Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 172 (2017) 207-217.-   Cheng, Y. S., J. L. Kenoyer, R. A. Guilmette, Yung Sung Cheng    and, M. A. Parkhurst, 2009. Physiochemical Characterization of    Capstone Depleted Uranium Aerosols II: Particle Size Distribution as    a Function of Time, Health Physics, Volume 96, Number 4, pp 266-275.    March 2009.-   Choy, C. C., G. P. Korfatis, and X. Meng, 2006. Removal of Depleted    Uranium from Contaminated Soil. J. Hazard Mater. 2006 Aug. 10;    136(1): 53-60. Epub 2005 Dec. 28.-   Crean, D. E., F. R. Livens, M. Sajih, M. C. Stennett, D.    Goleman, C. N. Broca, and N. C. Hyatt, “Remediation of soils    contaminated with particulate depleted uranium by multi-stage    chemical extraction,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 263 (2013    (382-390, Aug. 2, 2013.-   DOE 2009. DOE Standard: Guide of Good Practices for Occupational    Radiological Protection in Uranium Facilities, U.S. Department of    Energy, DOE-STD-1136-2004. Washington D.C.-   EPA 1999. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to    Radionuclides—Federal Guidance Report No. 13. U.S. Environmental    Protection Agency. EPA 402-R-99-001, September 1999.-   EPA 2006, Depleted Uranium-Technical Brief, Radiation Protection    Division of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the    Environmental Protection Agency.-   Hindin, R., D. Brugge, and B. Panikkar 2005. “Terratogenicity of    depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an Epidemiological    perspective,” Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source    2005, 4:17 Aug. 22, 2005.-   Holmes, T. D., R. A. Guilmette, Yung Sung Cheng, M. A. Parkhurst,    and M. D. Hoover 2009. Aerosol Sampling System for Collection of    Capstone Depleted Uranium Particles in a High-Energy Environment,    Health Physics, Volume 96, Number 4, pp 221-237. March 2009.-   ICRP 68 (1994), Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by    Workers, International Commission on Radiation Protection. Annals of    the ICRP Volume 24, No. 4, 1994. ISSN 0146-6453. Pergamon.-   ICRP 72 (1995), Age-Dependent Doses to the Members of the Public    from Intake of Radionuclides—Part 5 Compilation of Ingestion and    Inhalation Coefficients, International Commission on Radiation    Protection. Annals of the ICRP Volume 26, No. 1, 1995. Pergamon.-   Kennedy, W. E. Jr. and D. L. Strenge, Residual Radioactive    Contamination from Decommissioning,” Technical Basis for Translating    Contamination Levels to Annual Total Effective Dose Equivalent,    Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial    Institute, prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,    NUREG/CR-5512, PNL-7994, Vol. 1, October 1992; see page 6.10).-   Krupka, K. M., M. A. Parkhurst, K. Gold, B. W. Arey, E. D. Jenson,    and, R. A. Guilmette, 2009. Physiochemical Characterization of    Capstone Depleted Uranium Aerosols III: Morphologic and Chemical    Oxide Analysis, Health Physics, Volume 96, Number 4, pp 276-291.    March 2009.-   Manickam, S. Sdraulig, and R. A. Tinker, Method Design and    Validation for the Determination of Uranium Levels in Human Urine    Using High-Resolution Alpha Spectrometry, Journal of Environmental    Radioactivity, Vol. 99, pp 4891-501, 2008.-   Miller, G., Y. S. Cheng, R. J. Traub, T. T. Little, and R.    Guilmette, 2009. Methods Used to Calculate Doses Resulting from    Inhalation of Capstone Depleted Uranium Aerosols, Health Physics,    Vol. 96, No. 3, p. 306-327, March 2009.-   Mohammes, A. A., A Sh. Hussien, and N. F. Tawfiw, 2008. “Assessment    of depleted uranium concentration in selected Iraqi soils”, Journal    of Al-Nahrain University, Volume 11(1), pp 74-81, April 2008.-   NCRP 1987. Exposure of the Population in the United States and    Canada from Natural Background Radiation, National Council on    Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP Report No. 94, Dec. 30,    1987.-   Parkhurst, M. A., E. G. Daxon. G. M. Lodde, F. Szron, R. A.    Guilmette, L. E. Roszell, G. A. Falco, and C. B. McKee, “Depleted    Uranium Aerosol Doses and Risks: Summary of U.S. Assessments,”    prepared for the US Army by Battelle under the Chemical and    Biological Defense Information Analysis Center, Task 241, DO 0189,    Aberdeen Maryland, PNWD-3476. October 2004-   Rostker, 2000. Environmental Exposure Report, Depleted Uranium in    the Gulf (II). Special Assistant to Gulf War Illness, Department of    Defense, 200179-0000002, Ver 2.0; http://wwwgilflink.osd.mil/du_ii/.-   Sarap, N. B. et al. 2014, “Environmental radioactivity in southern    Serbia at locations where depleted uranium was used,” Arh Hig Rad    Toksikol 2014: 65: 189-197. DOI: 10.2478/10004-1254-65-2014-2427.-   Seiler, F. A., G. J. Newton, and R. A. Guilmette, Continuous    Monitoring for Airborne a Emitters in a Dusty Environment, in Health    Physics, Vol 54. No. 5 (May) pp 503-515, 1988.-   Stevens DC, Toureau AER. The Effect of Dust Loading on the Shape of    Alpha Pulse Height Spectra of Air Sample Filters, Atomic Energy    Research Establishment Report. Berkshire, UK: AERE; Report No.    AERE-R 4249; 1963.-   UNSCEAR 1993, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United    Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.    UNSCEAR 1993 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific    Annexes. United Nations, New York, 1993.-   Yu, C. et. al., 1993a, Data Collection handbook to Support Modeling    the Impacts of Radioactive Material in Soil, Environmental    Assessment and Information Sciences Division, Argonne National    Laboratory, ANL/EAIS-8, April 1993.-   Yu. et. al., 1993b, “Manual for Implementing Residual Radioactivity    Material Guidelines Using RESRAD Version 5,” Environmental    Assessment and Information Sciences Division, Argonne National    Laboratory, ANL/EAD/LD-2, September 1993.-   Zhang, Y. Shao, and N. Huang, Measurement of Dust Deposition    Velocity in a Wind Tunnel Experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,    8869-8882, 2014.

Certain of the devices shown in the Figures include a computing system.The computing system includes a processor (CPU) and a system bus thatcouples various system components including a system memory such as readonly memory (ROM) and random access memory (RAM), to the processor.Other system memory may be available for use as well. The computingsystem may include more than one processor or a group or cluster ofcomputing system networked together to provide greater processingcapability. The system bus may be any of several types of bus structuresincluding a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, and alocal bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. A basicinput/output (BIOS) stored in the ROM or the like, may provide basicroutines that help to transfer information between elements within thecomputing system, such as during start-up. The computing system furtherincludes data stores, which maintain a database according to knowndatabase management systems. The data stores may be embodied in manyforms, such as a hard disk drive, a magnetic disk drive, an optical diskdrive, tape drive, or another type of computer readable media which canstore data that are accessible by the processor, such as magneticcassettes, flash memory cards, digital versatile disks, cartridges,random access memories (RAM) and, read only memory (ROM). The datastores may be connected to the system bus by a drive interface. The datastores provide nonvolatile storage of computer readable instructions,data structures, program modules and other data for the computingsystem.

To enable human (and in some instances, machine) user interaction, thecomputing system may include an input device, such as a microphone forspeech and audio, a touch sensitive screen for gesture or graphicalinput, keyboard, mouse, motion input, and so forth. An output device caninclude one or more of a number of output mechanisms. In some instances,multimodal systems enable a user to provide multiple types of input tocommunicate with the computing system. A communications interfacegenerally enables the computing device system to communicate with one ormore other computing devices using various communication and networkprotocols.

The preceding disclosure refers to flowcharts and accompanyingdescriptions to illustrate the embodiments represented in FIGS. 1-4B.The disclosed devices, components, and systems contemplate using orimplementing any suitable technique for performing the stepsillustrated. Thus, the flowchart of FIG. 4 is for illustration purposesonly and the described or similar steps may be performed at anyappropriate time, including concurrently, individually, or incombination. In addition, many of the steps in the flow chart may takeplace simultaneously and/or in different orders than as shown anddescribed. Moreover, the disclosed systems may use processes and methodswith additional, fewer, and/or different steps.

Embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in digital electroniccircuitry, or in computer software, firmware, or hardware, including theherein disclosed structures and their equivalents. Some embodiments canbe implemented as one or more computer programs, i.e., one or moremodules of computer program instructions, encoded on computer storagemedium for execution by one or more processors. A computer storagemedium can be, or can be included in, a computer-readable storagedevice, a computer-readable storage substrate, or a random or serialaccess memory. The computer storage medium can also be, or can beincluded in, one or more separate physical components or media such asmultiple CDs, disks, or other storage devices. The computer readablestorage medium does not include a transitory signal.

The herein disclosed methods can be implemented as operations performedby a processor on data stored on one or more computer-readable storagedevices or received from other sources.

A computer program (also known as a program, module, engine, software,software application, script, or code) can be written in any form ofprogramming language, including compiled or interpreted languages,declarative or procedural languages, and it can be deployed in any form,including as a stand-alone program or as a module, component,subroutine, object, or other unit suitable for use in a computingenvironment. A computer program may, but need not, correspond to a filein a file system. A program can be stored in a portion of a file thatholds other programs or data (e.g., one or more scripts stored in amarkup language document), in a single file dedicated to the program inquestion, or in multiple coordinated files (e.g., files that store oneor more modules, sub-programs, or portions of code). A computer programcan be deployed to be executed on one computer or on multiple computersthat are located at one site or distributed across multiple sites andinterconnected by a communication network.

I claim:
 1. A continuous, real time monitor for airborne depleteduranium (DU) particles in a respiratory range, comprising: a housing,comprising: an air mover that pulls an air sample into the monitor at adesired airflow rate to deposit particles in the air sample on a filtermedia; a prefilter sized to pass only respirable range particles in theair sample; a first optical sensor downstream of the prefilterconfigured to provide a first airborne dust concentration and a firstsize distribution of the respirable range particles contained in the airsample; a second optical sensor upstream of the prefilter configured tomeasure the airborne concentrations of particles that are greater insize than respirable range particles to allow assessment of potentialtoxicological damage to kidneys; a movable filter web through which theair sample is pulled, the movable filter web supporting a plurality ofthe filter media upon which the particles in the air sample aredeposited; a solid state detector configured to measure alpha activityemitted from DU particles in the air sample and deposited on the filtermedia; and a processor configured to execute a program of machineinstructions, the program contained on a non-transient computer-readablestorage medium, and configured to: control movement of the movablefilter web to place the movable filter web in a first position in whichthe air sample passes thereby depositing the particles and a secondposition at which the emitted alpha activity is detected and measured bythe solid state detector, and compute, using the first airborne dustconcentration, a dust loading on the filter media.
 2. The monitor ofclaim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute a geneticalgorithm configured to compute to the total amount of DU that may beinhaled.
 3. The monitor of claim 2, wherein the processor is configuredto execute a genetic algorithm configured to: compute the amount of DUparticles in a respirable range and an amount of DU particles having anaerodynamic diameter greater than the respirable range particles; andcompute a second size distribution of particles in the air sample havingan aerodynamic diameter greater than the respirable range.
 4. Themonitor of claim 3, wherein the respirable range comprises particleshaving a maximum aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns.
 5. The monitor ofclaim 4, wherein the prefilter is sized to pass particles having amaximum aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns.
 6. The monitor of claim 5,wherein the processor is configured to execute a genetic algorithmconfigured to: compute a thickness of dust (cm) and dust loading(mg/cm²) on the filter media, comprising the processor configured todetermine a product of the dust loading on the filter media, and a dustdensity on the filter media; compare the computed dust thickness anddust loading to a desired set point; and adjust one or more of thesample time and the sample airflow rate based on the comparison.
 7. Themonitor of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to repeat thecomputing, comparing, and adjusting processes of the genetic algorithmperiodically during the sampling time.
 8. The monitor of claim 5,wherein the processor is further configured to execute the geneticalgorithm configured to: compute a shortest air sample time and anassociated sample airflow rate that results in a deposition of DU on thefilter media that is indicative of an ambient airborne concentration ofrespirable DU reaching a variable setpoint.
 9. The monitor of claim 8,wherein the filter media comprises a porous material that will not repelthe particles nor allow the particles to become embedded in or absorbedby the filter media.
 10. The monitor of claim 1, wherein the processoris configured to execute a genetic algorithm configured to provide: alow sample airflow alarm; a high sample airflow alarm; and an end ofmoveable filter web alarm.
 11. The monitor of claim 1, comprising: adetector height adjustment device that operates under control of theprocessor to move the solid state detector vertically in relation to asurface of the movable filter web; and a movable detector housing thatmoves vertically under control of the processor to form a light tightbarrier surrounding the filter media in the second position of themovable filter media during measurement of alpha activity.
 12. Themonitor of claim 1, comprising: a power supply, comprising: a regulatedpower supply, and back up power supply; and an environmental controlmodule, comprising: a temperature control unit comprising one or moreventilation fans, and a humidity control unit.
 13. The monitor of claim1, comprising a wireless communications module, comprising: a remoteread out unit that: provides a read out of measured alpha activity, dustloading, and particle size distribution to a remote site; and receivescommands from the remote location to direct execution of the machineinstructions by the processor to control operation of the monitor. 14.The monitor of claim 1, comprising: a filter media removal station,comprising: a filter media lifter configured to lift a filter media fromthe movable filter web, and a closable opening in the housing, operableto allow removal of the lifted filter media.
 15. A continuous, real timemonitor for airborne depleted uranium particles, comprising: a housingcontaining: an air intake, comprising: a variable speed air mover, anair intake prefilter, a first particle detector upstream of theprefilter, the first particle detector comprising an optical detectorconfigured to provide a first airborne dust concentration and a firstdistribution of particulate aerodynamic diameters of particles enteringthe air intake, and a second particle detector downstream of theprefilter, the second particle detector comprising a second opticaldetector configured to provide a second airborne dust concentration anda second distribution of particulate aerodynamic diameters of particlespassing the prefilter; a movable filter web comprising a plurality offilter media supported on a surface of the movable filter web, themovable filter web and the filter media configured to collect particlespassing the prefilter; a solid state detector configured to detect alpharadiation emitted by the collected particles; and a processor configuredto: compute an indication of alpha activity detected by the solid statedetector, and compute an indication of chemical toxicity of particlesentering the air intake.
 16. The monitor of claim 15, wherein theprocessor is configured to execute a program of machine instructions,the program contained on a non-transient computer-readable storagemedium, and configured to: control movement of the movable filter web toplace the movable filter web in a first position in which the air samplepasses thereby depositing the particles and a second position at whichthe emitted alpha activity is detected and measured by the solid statedetector: compute, using the second airborne dust concentration, a dustloading on the filter media: and compute, using the first airborne dustconcentration, a total DU concentration in air entering the air intake.17. The monitor of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configuredto execute the program of machine instructions configured to: controloperation of the solid state detector at the second position to: adjusta height of the solid state detector above the filter media based on thedust loading determination, delay counting by the solid state detectorto allow for decay of short alpha emitters on the filter media, andconduct a count by the solid state detector for a specified time. 18.The monitor of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured toexecute the program of machine instructions configured to maintain themovable filter web in the first position for the longer of a preset timeand a time when the computed first dust loading reaches a maximum dustloading threshold.
 19. A depleted uranium monitor for measuring thebiological hazard effects of airborne depleted uranium in a dustyenvironment, comprising: an air intake, comprising: a variable speedmotor operating an air mover, an air particle size measurement unitcomprising: a first air particle detector that generates a firstparticle size distribution for particles entering the air intake; asecond air particle detector that generates a second particle sizedistribution of particles passing the prefilter; a prefilter separatingthe first and second air particle detectors; and a filter media samplecollection chamber; a moveable web supporting a plurality of filtermedia, each of the filter media configured to collect depleted uraniumparticles passing the prefilter while positioned in the filter mediasample collection chamber; a solid state detector configured to detectalpha activity emitted by the collected depleted uranium particles; aprocessor configured to execute machine instructions embodies on anon-transient computer-readable storage medium to compute a filter mediadust loading based on the second particle size distribution, a sampletime, and an air flow rate.
 20. The depleted uranium monitor of claim19, wherein the processor is configured execute the machine instructionsto compute an indication of chemical toxicity of depleted uraniumparticles entering the air intake.